From: Tian Yuchen <cat@malon.dev>
To: Git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [Question] check_repository_format_gently() is not side-effect-free
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 01:45:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c0bb931a-3ee6-416b-8ceb-9fab013a621e@malon.dev> (raw)
Hi Git community,
In setup.c:
> static const char *setup_explicit_git_dir(const char *gitdirenv,
> struct strbuf *cwd,
> struct repository_format *repo_fmt,
> int *nongit_ok)
> {
> const char *work_tree_env = getenv(GIT_WORK_TREE_ENVIRONMENT);
> const char *worktree;
> char *gitfile;
> int offset;
>
> if (PATH_MAX - 40 < strlen(gitdirenv))
> die(_("'$%s' too big"), GIT_DIR_ENVIRONMENT);
>
> gitfile = (char*)read_gitfile(gitdirenv);
> if (gitfile) {
> gitfile = xstrdup(gitfile);
> gitdirenv = gitfile;
> }
>
> if (!is_git_directory(gitdirenv)) {
> if (nongit_ok) {
> *nongit_ok = 1;
> free(gitfile);
> return NULL;
> }
> die(_("not a git repository: '%s'"), gitdirenv);
> }
>
...
> if (check_repository_format_gently(gitdirenv, repo_fmt, nongit_ok)) {
> free(gitfile);
> return NULL;
> }
I've noticed that this function behaves rather strangely. If I am
correct, The primary purpose of this function is to verify whether the
Git binary understands the current repository format.
The implementation is as follows:
> static int check_repository_format_gently(const char *gitdir, struct repository_format *candidate, int *nongit_ok)
> {
> struct strbuf sb = STRBUF_INIT;
> struct strbuf err = STRBUF_INIT;
> int has_common;
>
> has_common = get_common_dir(&sb, gitdir);
> strbuf_addstr(&sb, "/config");
> read_repository_format(candidate, sb.buf);
> strbuf_release(&sb);
>
> /*
> * For historical use of check_repository_format() in git-init,
> * we treat a missing config as a silent "ok", even when nongit_ok
> * is unset.
> */
> if (candidate->version < 0)
> return 0;
>
> if (verify_repository_format(candidate, &err) < 0) {
> if (nongit_ok) {
> warning("%s", err.buf);
> strbuf_release(&err);
> *nongit_ok = -1;
> return -1;
> }
> die("%s", err.buf);
> }
>
> the_repository->repository_format_precious_objects = candidate->precious_objects;
>
> string_list_clear(&candidate->unknown_extensions, 0);
> string_list_clear(&candidate->v1_only_extensions, 0);
>
> if (candidate->worktree_config) {
> /*
> * pick up core.bare and core.worktree from per-worktree
> * config if present
> */
> strbuf_addf(&sb, "%s/config.worktree", gitdir);
> git_config_from_file(read_worktree_config, sb.buf, candidate);
> strbuf_release(&sb);
> has_common = 0;
> }
...
> if (!has_common) {
> if (candidate->is_bare != -1) {
> is_bare_repository_cfg = candidate->is_bare;
> if (is_bare_repository_cfg == 1)
> inside_work_tree = -1;
> }
> if (candidate->work_tree) {
> free(git_work_tree_cfg);
> git_work_tree_cfg = xstrdup(candidate->work_tree);
> inside_work_tree = -1;
> }
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
Obviously it applies the parsed results to the global environment. Since
this function starts with 'check_' and ends with '_gently,' it's hard
not to think of it as a side-effect-free diagnostic function.
git grep "^[a-z_]* check_[a-z_]*(" -- "*.c"
Using the command above, we can see that there are other functions in
the Git source code that start with 'check_' but are not entirely
side-effect-free. However, I believe that the two variables
(is_bare_repository_cfg, git_work_tree_cfg) this function modifies are
much more crucial: For example, if I want to handle both a bare
repository and a normal repository within a single process, wouldn't
problems arise soon?
I would love to hear if there are any historical reasons preventing us
from stripping these global side-effects out of this function.
Regards,
Yuchen
next reply other threads:[~2026-03-19 17:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-19 17:45 Tian Yuchen [this message]
2026-03-19 18:07 ` [Question] check_repository_format_gently() is not side-effect-free Junio C Hamano
2026-03-20 0:24 ` Tian Yuchen
2026-03-20 6:07 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-03-20 15:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-03-20 16:26 ` Tian Yuchen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c0bb931a-3ee6-416b-8ceb-9fab013a621e@malon.dev \
--to=cat@malon.dev \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox