From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 88C6B24B2F for ; Tue, 28 May 2024 17:47:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716918430; cv=none; b=My4hJGkD9ptUFS/XPXoeUo5cTrpBUWz2BY7DghpOrQM2NN8AMIOP27ezco2/tUX1PP2mmuMK5MLa4y2/jnjaQikLLE+xM3lNZsHift2LiukRxBUUCcagyFffiDjmllDOzcUs18/vaNKqFmspIxw9vX2S+cAjc/eKkxikbKDtt28= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716918430; c=relaxed/simple; bh=24tnT8tSv25E5DOoZgKQPvHRXDidc2IK0mAVd6+PFEA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jKjE0jsLHXu1jEyS+va4PNtsMeEARde1Fq5ldQYl5GaA7k3oKQ4ATFZAgr/am1MqmZluZEGW6M6dwf2a/VwfF/U1c+mEpwyqlFw5K+Zsk1CI57jNMtiHrXIzrOIc/X27aA30YdupmOU3AtKpb3BK1bexo1YvD8800cntqKrah74= 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=RzTKmx9G; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="RzTKmx9G" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B4E225D3; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:47:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=24tnT8tSv25E5DOoZgKQPvHRXDidc2IK0mAVd6 +PFEA=; b=RzTKmx9GC9nsftgPBRTUKi5su/GRuKERPlMh/zCflJomvuhMaroxp2 dJOaKPDnQ6EDsWZZK1o87403/d9cOWdrK9IUNJv4BsOseY30oykyKRyxb6M2ILAV ySvNY+R7a+Jy6mOZ6SNUMtvvZtpLgefTa1UEiaBAVvDYobik9syO0= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF14E225D2; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:47:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.173.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AD23225D1; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:47:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Joey Hess , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Fix various overly aggressive protections in 2.45.1 and friends In-Reply-To: <8353645a-a684-417a-8b0e-d8cbd7da6b5a@gmail.com> (Phillip Wood's message of "Tue, 28 May 2024 16:02:37 +0100") References: <20240521195659.870714-1-gitster@pobox.com> <99225123-70f0-3546-a6fa-b6d1f981b41d@gmx.de> <8353645a-a684-417a-8b0e-d8cbd7da6b5a@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 10:47:04 -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 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4C70FEEE-1D1A-11EF-9841-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Phillip Wood writes: >> And there is a good reason _not_ to write stuff inside the `.git/` >> directory unless you happen to be, well, Git itself: Git makes no >> guarantees whatsoever that you can write into that directory whatever you >> want. A future Git version might even write a file `.git/annex`, breaking >> `git-annex`' assumptions, and that'd be totally within the guarantees Git >> makes. > > This seems a bit harsh - many tools store their state under .git/ and > I think it makes sense for them to do so as it avoids creating > untracked files in the working copy. I would hope that we'd be > considerate of widely used tools such as 'git annex' when adding new > paths under .git/ Yes, a .git/annex file _can_ happen, but between civilized developer groups, such a thing would not happen without a good reason. If we have no good reason (apparently you and I did not think of any) to create such a file, "it can happen" is a poor straw-man, as we would be aiming to work well together. Yes, when we have a symbolic link as a tracked content, updating the target of the link when we need to update it is simply a bug, and it does not matter if it points at a file inside our own repository, or a file inside a different and unrelated repository that is owned by the same user, or a file in the user's home directory. Our own repository is not all that special from that perspective, and a change to penalize symbolic links that point into our repository specifically probably did make a bad choice. Thanks.