my team had issues when IT accidentally changed permissions on the files inside a bare git repo located on a file-share. Otherwise it works okay as people clone and work locally. Not the best solution but we’re working around restrictions that makes this the easiest thing to do

Do you git clone from the windows share or do all just use the same share as the working tree?

To be honest I’d start by asking them why it’s set up like that as diplomatically as possible. This might be a bad solution, but what pushed them to adopt it nevertheless might be an organizational peculiarity you don’t want to find the hard way.

The big difference there seems to be cloud, ie someone else’s computer, and company internal network. That is a big and fundamental choice: Will you allow (leak) your data outside of your control.

Doing anything with Windows shares is a bad idea technically, of course. But with git, every workspace is generally a full copy of the repository. All you need a shared one for is syncing work. And backups are always a sensible thing to have no matter how you arrange files. With that, it seems to be a low risk thing to me.

A bundle might or might not be safer than a repo, but either will probably work.

Reading some of the comment responses, it does sound like there’s an air of ineptitude or a long history of systems not working and devs not allowed to make them work, so they just try workarounds for everything.

It is fine. But for your personal growth and some more peace of mind, you should migrate the repository to one of the git services of your organization.

Personal growth because you will be able to use feature like branch policies, CICD pipelines or an integrated work item board.

Peace of mind because that network share is less likely to be recoverable than a self hosted gitlab instance for example.

The migration process also only take less than 5 min so there are more advabtages than disadvantages to do so.