On Mon, 2015-08-31 at 07:36 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> * dt/refs-bisection (2015-08-28) 5 commits > >> - bisect: make bisection refs per-worktree > >> - refs: make refs/worktree/* per-worktree > >> - SQUASH??? > >> - path: optimize common dir checking > >> - refs: clean up common_list > >> > >> Move the refs used during a "git bisect" session to per-worktree > >> hierarchy refs/worktree/* so that independent bisect sessions can > >> be done in different worktrees. > >> > >> Will merge to 'next' after squashing the update in. > > > > Sorry if I am missing something or repeating what myself or someone > > else like Michael already said, but in the current doc there is: > > > > Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and > > you will have been left with the first bad kernel revision in > > "refs/bisect/bad". > > > > If we now just use "refs/worktree/bisect/bad" instead of > > "refs/bisect/bad", it might break scripts that rely using > > "refs/bisect/bad". > > Christian, thanks for raising this one. > > I do recall the thread and I might be the somebody like Michael you > remember, e.g. $gmane/275105---which did mention that "git bisect" > would not need changing if we kept refs/bisect/. > > What was the reason why we chose to move to refs/worktree/ again? I > do not think there was an issue that we cannot keep refs/* in > general shared while having one (or more) subhierarchy of it per > worktree (otherwise we would not be using refs/worktree/*, but using > something outside refs/, like $GIT_DIR/worktree-refs/). Was there an > objection to refs/bisect being private from aesthetics point of view > (i.e. forcing everything per-worktree in refs/worktree/ would prevent > proliferation of refs/this and refs/that that need to be private > case by case), ignoring the practical issue of compatibility issues > around existing tools? That is correct. IIRC, on one of these patch sets, I proposed accepting both new and old refs, but you said that would be unnecessary (it might have been the notes/merge one instead of this one). > I think one example of script, "gitk --bisect", does want to show > the DAG limited by bisect refs, but it does so using plumbing > without having to say refs/bisect/bad itself. Perhaps the thinking > (or lack of enough of it) went that no other uses by scripts need to > peek directly into refs/bisect/ hierarchy? I did a quick search on github, and did not see any scripts that said "refs/bisect". -- 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