Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:55:10 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check more robust" |
| |
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:58 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 12:43:58PM -0800, Genki Sky wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:44:37 -0800, Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:00:36PM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: > > > > On a different tangent: how about the --no-optional-locks (see > > > > git(1))? Will this get you your "up-to-date" result without writing to > > > > the .git directory? I've only read the documentation, but not tested > > > > it. > > > > This option definitely seems to be what we want, good find. > > > > > Unfortunately, --no-optional-locks is new as of git 2.14. Dunno how new > > > of a git we expect people to use. > > > > Hmm, I'm not sure who can speak to this. > > > > Though if it's too recent, then based on earlier discussion, it sounds > > like something like this (hack) might work best: > > > > [ -w .git ] && > > touch .git/some-file-here 2>/dev/null && > > git update-index --refresh --unmerged >/dev/null > > if git diff-index --name-only HEAD | ... > > I do not think it is a good idea to create a random file in the .git directory > under any circumstance, and much less so if an output directory was specified, > no matter if the path is read-only or not. I also still think that it is a > bad idea to touch the source tree if an output directory was specified. > It defeats the purpose of specifying an output directory.
I agree. We should avoid any write attempt to the source tree for any reason.
> Ubuntu 16.04 ships with git version 2.7.4. > > Guenter
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |