Allow git-instaweb to be run from bare repositories
PATCH 1/1 Allow git-instaweb to be run from bare repositories
--- git-instaweb.sh | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
On IRC yesterday, two were asking for this and it seems simply enough. Apparently, git-instaweb is a great way to see if you've set up a remote repository correctly.
git-instaweb.sh +1 -0
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ USAGE='[--start] [--stop] [--restart] [--local] [--httpd=<httpd>] [--port=<port>] [--browser=<browser>] [--module-path=<path> (for Apache2 only)]' +SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes . git-sh-setup fqgitdir="$GIT_DIR"
Signature · 6 lines
1.5.3.4.1481.g854da-dirty -- Jonas Fonseca
Quoted 14 lines · Jonas Fonseca
Signed-off-by Jonas Fonseca <[email protected]>--- git-instaweb.sh | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)On IRC yesterday, two were asking for this and it seems simply enough. Apparently, git-instaweb is a great way to see if you've set up a remote repository correctly.
git-instaweb.sh +0
-0
git-instaweb.sh USAGE='[--start] [--stop] [--restart] · line 12
Quoted 7 lines
git-instaweb.sh +1
-0@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ USAGE='[--start] [--stop] [--restart] [--local] [--httpd=<httpd>] [--port=<port>] [--browser=<browser>] [--module-path=<path> (for Apache2 only)]' +SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes . git-sh-setup fqgitdir="$GIT_DIR"
I'd agree with the goal of the patch, and I would not doubt the patch worked for you, but it somewhat feels wrong that you can say "It is Ok to run this script from a subdirectory" and that is the magic to allow something to work in a bare repository.
Care to share your insights on what is going on?
Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote Fri, Nov 02, 2007:
Quoted 22 lines
Quoted 20 lines · Jonas Fonseca
Signed-off-by Jonas Fonseca <[email protected]>--- git-instaweb.sh | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)On IRC yesterday, two were asking for this and it seems simply enough. Apparently, git-instaweb is a great way to see if you've set up a remote repository correctly.
git-instaweb.sh +1
-0@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ USAGE='[--start] [--stop] [--restart] [--local] [--httpd=<httpd>] [--port=<port>] [--browser=<browser>] [--module-path=<path> (for Apache2 only)]' +SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes . git-sh-setup
Quoted 8 lines
git-instaweb.sh USAGE='[--start] [--stop] [--restart] · line 12
Quoted 1 line
git-instaweb.sh +0
-0fqgitdir="$GIT_DIR"I'd agree with the goal of the patch, and I would not doubt the patch worked for you, but it somewhat feels wrong that you can say "It is Ok to run this script from a subdirectory" and that is the magic to allow something to work in a bare repository.
Care to share your insights on what is going on?
After disecting the source code in more depth as well as the trace of running git-instaweb inside a bare repository, the command relies on git-sh-setup (which is assumed to be safe in bare repos) to initialize a sane value of GIT_DIR. It uses GIT_DIR to initialize:
+ fqgitdir=/tmp/git.git
which is never touched later (and could possibly be changed to just use the GIT_DIR variable instead, since either is used interchangably throughout the script. In fact, it later does:
GIT_DIR="$fqgitdir"
which could be removed. Anyway, this fqgitdir variable is used for creating a place for gitweb and HTTP server configuration files under "$fqgitdir/gitweb".
+ mkdir -p /tmp/git.git/gitweb/tmp
The remaining things in the script is option handling and setting up the HTTP server configuration. The only place where I see it possibly "spilling out" into the parent directory is this sequence:
+ dirname /tmp/git.git + script= s#^\(my\|our\) $projectroot =.*#\1 $projectroot = "/tmp";# s#\(my\|our\) $gitbin =.*#\1 $gitbin = "/home/fonseca/bin";# s#\(my\|our\) $projects_list =.*#\1 $projects_list = $projectroot;# s#\(my\|our\) $git_temp =.*#\1 $git_temp = "/tmp/git.git/gitweb/tmp";#
Where it creates gitweb.cgi. This might make gitweb try to look for .git directories in subdirectories. Maybe it should create a projects_list file to explicitly list that only "$barerepo.git" is exported?
Signature · 1 line
Jonas Fonseca