Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/setlocalversion: git: Make -dirty check more robust"

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:58 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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