It is safer and consistent with "--merge" and "--hard" resets to disallow
"git reset --keep" outside a work tree.
So let's just do that and add some tests while at it.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 952dfc6 tried to tighten the safety valves for doing
a "reset --hard" in a bare repository or outside the work
tree, but accidentally broke the case for GIT_WORK_TREE.
This patch unbreaks it.
Most git commands which need a work tree simply use
NEED_WORK_TREE in git.c to die before they get to their
cmd_* function. Reset, however, only needs a work tree in
some cases, and so must handle the work tree itself. The
error that 952dfc6 made was to simply forbid certain
operations if the work tree was not set up; instead, we need
to do the same thing that NEED_WORK_TREE does, which is to
call setup_work_tree(). We no longer have to worry about dying
in the non-worktree case, as setup_work_tree handles that
for us.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The existing code checked to make sure we were not in a bare
repository when doing a hard reset. However, we should take
this one step further, and make sure we are in a worktree.
Otherwise, we can end up munging files inside of '.git'.
Furthermore, we should do the same check for --merge resets,
which have the same properties. Actually, a merge reset of
HEAD^ would already complain, since further down in the code
we want a worktree. However, it is nicer to check up-front;
then we are sure we cover all cases ("git reset --merge"
would run, even though it wasn't doing anything) and we can
give a more specific message.
Add tests to t7103 to cover these cases and some missing ones.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This patch changes every occurrence of "! git" -- with the meaning
that a git call has to gracefully fail -- into "test_must_fail git".
This is useful to
- make sure the test does not fail because of a signal,
e.g. SIGSEGV, and
- advertise the use of "test_must_fail" for new tests.
Signed-off-by: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It makes no sense since there is no working tree. A soft
reset should be fine, though.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
