On 07/06/2015 03:40 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
If you are extending the history of some branch, then you would want to be on that branch. Why would you want to have another worktree that will get into a confusing state once you create that commit on the checked out branch in this newly created worktree? Wasn't the whole point of making the primary repository aware of the secondary worktrees via the "linked checkout" mechanism because that confusion was the biggest sore point of the old contrib/workdir implementation?
The only issue I have with git-new-workdir is that git-gc in one worktree is unaware of what is in use in another so can prune things away. The linked worktrees here nicely solve that problem.
The main use I have of maintaining multiple checkouts of one branch is for testing / analysis (where said tests can take days to weeks to run). Disallowing use of git's normal mechanism of tracking what is checked out in each such tree forces use of another system to do so, just imposing different difficulties for this use case. I note that 1) code must be ADDED to git to prevent such duplicate checkouts which otherwise cause no difficulty to git itself, and 2) adding those checks requires additional work to avoid the fallout. I have yet to hear what the upside of such a restriction is, I only see downsides.
Mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html