On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 05:46:12PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote: > >> I'm not opposed to letting one worktree see everything, but this move >> makes it harder to write new scripts (or new builtin commands, even) >> that works with both single and multiple worktrees because you refer >> to one ref (in current worktree perspective) differently. If we kill >> of the main worktree (i.e. git init always creates a linked worktree) >> then it's less of a problem, but still a nuisance to write >> refs/worktree/$CURRENT/<something> everywhere. > > True. I gave a suggestion for the reading side, but the writing side > would still remain tedious. > > I wonder if, in a worktree, we could simply convert requests to read or > write names that do not begin with "refs/" as "refs/worktree/$CURRENT/"? > That makes it a read/write-time alias conversion, but the actual storage > is just vanilla (so the ref storage doesn't need to care, and > reachability just works). A conversion like that is already happening, but it works at git_path() level instead and maps anything outside refs/ to worktrees/$CURRENT. Reorganizing all refs in a single ref storage is probably possible, but... > The trickiest thing, I think, is FETCH_HEAD, which is not really a > ref (because it may have a bunch of values, and contain extra > information). Yeah.. I think David and Junio touched this when lmdb backend was discussed, which resulted in leaving per-worktree refs to filesystem backend even when shared refs are in lmdb. We probably can still make it work, I think refs subsystem has special case for FETCH_HEAD already. But 'refs' stuff is really not my area, I should stop writing now before making too many wrong statements. -- Duy -- 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