From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E0BDA31 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750035208; cv=none; b=SEGHprDY61MEH8r59iPgKypwxAV3kEI8IisnF+aYASbvplDXiLy5WcwGKCzLRBRr57Wi6ZEG8McNoXVoh0O5hKHyDl+nP5dah0EdMcCTurTPZtzUwKjnuPfzO0i5XP0b5caozyqX90pNVhNYUod8z2b8JxpLuctghp4hiRpPbmI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750035208; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OKynlPdD7t/sqLfp7oEvSVoG1gL/ZNmEB2Se0q+YyPg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=N3KmXIhEiJdli0Pbc8UGduRdM0urJaIBllfUjQ/y7HNy0frptdXtG1HA9/Rmsqc5LARCH1snZeXTQF3/UDDQ0++Zf1bRX6J4O6BRtFmWpUZ1KqdKxWlxbCY7NQg+eOQbpwXHeIWWUU++5kJJDKaTS5j7Rw8mAzWHF6eu7eXZR0A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=UwBc7pO8; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=bpBbiwds; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="UwBc7pO8"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="bpBbiwds" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.phl.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8114513804DB; Sun, 15 Jun 2025 20:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 15 Jun 2025 20:53:25 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1750035205; x=1750121605; bh=vGvpzASfnE+RzxVe9PxXvCxVK33U4THRxlIBnuN2vEs=; b= UwBc7pO8PDFI3TFkSlchz6IVlgj1ZJgQfRDEyc5m2vz5BKewYSPcMLV7jMHQJ4/b GHSjUBCvvT/l7ia1aPrSGsz6oMavoqVKQozMVFJKGdSGzrrMyL8IpaiysRU9B8sk rytkKbHxoPAoTLwzKJUha+2Epgy69/XekZtC5cn0gKlHRuw4UkfB/oKekV0yCKRH qLn+9f+Mnl+CDd3kzcn0VMh9j/qm7lqabmEUtwo4grPLQpYwUpdKB+mO1Zrgt04W GJ2OPrwCAZSmMbc01cLhMux4ex6DhmLGdXSvYiPPaITBXTyAfFRflkKuvV0qfxp/ DPKqVa1aN+lCIAneNMe6PA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1750035205; x= 1750121605; bh=vGvpzASfnE+RzxVe9PxXvCxVK33U4THRxlIBnuN2vEs=; b=b pBbiwdssLkUYynBC3xov2mwvIhNHbed4Y4FUdoR756ROMVg38vIqyY7AdzX8Og6e wxK49j/dMRceoOzAQ9hlj+ZVgtEC5rsoMhm80IqjIvhi+/kE3m2jTH8ALVNIeVsi T1Oj//MXL5uQqfBKoZOB4eBA0YqNJ692BlzQu1QO5uM+xO3vLQaVdEf2ZHItS7FA NazpiQ5DhzGt0HixLuKMX28T51VfBUa7iWAl6byGXvRe8ji7q/+2s86PhBymUIaH bLJldhgA+IfeY75Te9bAFyht1EnoSqAe3f7Vl1wGAY5zjuKlWUBHCvBpjqAWtFhG peNQlkJdsAVKIwHZ+fAjA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddugddvhedulecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephffvve fujghffffkfgggtgfgsehtkeertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucevucfjrghm rghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpe dtffdvteegvddtkeetfeevueevlefgkeefheeigfehveehvdekheelveevfedtheenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgihhtshhtvg hrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeeipdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhu thdprhgtphhtthhopeehtddvtddvgeeffedttdehieesshhmrghilhdrnhhjuhdrvgguuh drtghnpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphht thhopegrhihurdgthhgrnhguvghkrghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheptg hhrhhishhtihgrnhdrtghouhguvghrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepshhh higrmhhthhgrkhhkrghrtddtudesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsh htvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 15 Jun 2025 20:53:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Lidong Yan <502024330056@smail.nju.edu.cn> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, ayu.chandekar@gmail.com, christian.couder@gmail.com, shyamthakkar001@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] git.c: remove the_repository dependence in run_builtin() In-Reply-To: (Lidong Yan's message of "Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:49:55 +0800") References: <20250612045905.3023227-1-502024330056@smail.nju.edu.cn> <20250614050331.304405-1-502024330056@smail.nju.edu.cn> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:53:22 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lidong Yan <502024330056@smail.nju.edu.cn> writes: > Junio C Hamano writes： >> Sorry, but the above makes it sound as if 246deeac (environment: >> make `get_git_dir()` accept a repository, 2024-09-12) that retired >> get_git_dir() and introduced repo_get_git_dir() was the culprit that >> made their semantics change, but is that really true? It appears >> that in the version immediately before that commit, get_git_dir() >> was also a reference to a variable, without any lazy initialization >> the above message says that the code tries to avoid, so I am even >> more confused after reading the above. > > I was reading the code in master and noticed that repo_get_git_dir() > no longer sets up the environment. I’ve learned that I should use git blame > to identify which commit changed the code, so I can make my message clearer. > >> Perhaps you have 73f192c9 (setup: don't perform lazy initialization >> of repository state, 2017-06-20) in mind? That one did stop calling >> setup_git_env() and instead force a hard BUG("") when git_dir is not >> set up yet. And that BUG("") still survives in repo_get_git_dir() >> we have today. > > Exactly > >> So the call to repo_get_git_dir() may still not be made from this >> code path. It may not attempt to set up, but instead it would die >> if we haven't successfully set up the repository before. The >> relevance of the comment was not changed by 246deeac that moved this >> code from get_git_dir() to repo_get_git_dir(), and more importantly, >> it was not changed by this patch we are reviewing here. >> >> But stepping back a bit, is it what a9ca8a85 originally wanted to >> achieve with this comment to "avoid calling get_git_dir()" in the >> first place? Once the guarding condition is satisfied, it calls >> trace_repo_setup(), which in turn calls get_git_dir() anyway. >> Perhaps it wanted to explain why startup_info->have_repository is >> checked here? > > Yes, I think so. Maybe updating the comment to say > “call repo_get_git_dir() after setting up the_repository” > would be more appropriate. I do not think so. e5b17bda (git: ensure correct git directory setup with -h, 2021-12-06) unfortunately moved lines around and made it look like the comment is about what happens when the if() condition holds, but if we look at the way how a9ca8a85 (builtins: print setup info if repo is found, 2010-11-26) initially placed this comment, we can see that this comment was to only explain the reason why we look at startup_info->have_repository there. "Only if we know we have repository, do the trace_repo_setup() thing because that one calls get_git_dir() that would die otherwise" is what the comment wants to say, and if we revert the moving-line-around done by e5b17bda to recover the original layout in a9ca8a85, I think it is clear enough. But the theme of this patch is not about improving the comment anyway, so it should probably be done as a separate patch (if we really cared, that is). Thanks.