From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout-index needs a working tree Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:11:11 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20070809223530.GA29680@cassiopeia> <7vd4xww6mr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Uwe =?utf-8?Q?Kleine-K=C3=B6nig?= , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 10 03:12:06 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IJJ2r-0001tT-FE for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:12:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753654AbXHJBL6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:11:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755570AbXHJBL6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:11:58 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:59219 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753639AbXHJBL5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 21:11:57 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2007 01:11:56 -0000 Received: from ppp-82-135-7-57.dynamic.mnet-online.de (EHLO [192.168.1.4]) [82.135.7.57] by mail.gmx.net (mp040) with SMTP; 10 Aug 2007 03:11:56 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19DJ8di6y9DA48wvA+V1y6Uw7OXueDx8uzZXgZY0V Khsy6zDpd1lvHf X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <7vd4xww6mr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > That is _completely_ expected. If it is a bare repository, you can _only_ > > override that check by GIT_WORK_TREE or --work-tree. > > > > But I have to wonder: if you want to use git checkout-index, which is a > > work-tree operation, why did you mark it as bare to begin with? > > I do not necessarily think --prefix=untar/it/here/ is a work > tree operation. > > Perhaps we probably are better off if we add something that says > specifying GIT_DIR alone means you are at the top of work tree > (to resurrect the traditional behaviour), to alleviate fallouts > like this and the other cvsserver one? If one does not like > that traditional behaviour, the new GIT_WORK_TREE support can > be used override it. I think I sent a patch for that, but was negative about it, even if I promised not to question your decision. Ciao, Dscho