On 11/25, Randall S. Becker wrote: > On November 25, 2017 3:06 PM Thomas Gummerer wrote: > <big snip> > >however we currently document one behaviour, which I would like to change > >(I usually have branches > >without a / in that I want to look at) we currently document one behaviour, > >which I'd like to change. So > >in that case we are a bit worried about backwards compatibility, and how > >this will affect current users > >that have a certain expectation of how the command is supposed to work, > >hence the discussion of > >whether to hide the new behaviour behind a flag or not. > > >Either way, if we do put the behaviour behind a flag, I'll also add a > >configuration variable, which can > >be set to enable the new behaviour so one doesn't have to type out the flag > >all the time. > > To be consistent with other commands, you could put path after -- and the > ambiguity with refs containing '/' goes away, as refs before the -- would > always be considered refs while after you have paths. > > What I don't like is the current add syntax of: > git worktree add [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>] > <path> [<branch>] > > where the path-spec precedes branch making things a bit icky. It might be > better to have an alternate syntax of: > > git worktree add [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>] > <path> [<branch>] > git worktree add [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>] > [<branch>] -- <path> Hmm I don't think there is any ambiguity there, the first argument always needs to be a path, and the second one is always a commit-ish. So this way there is no disambiguation needed. I'm not convinced the alternative syntax would buy us much, at least not in the context of what this series is trying to do. > But since we only have one path, that may be redundant. Just a thought, as > -- avoids a lot of interpretation evils. While we're here, I wonder whether > <branch> should be changed to <ref-spec> for more general use. Consider > release identifiers using tags, and using the tag instead of branch to > define commit on which the worktree is based. 'git worktree add' can already take a commit-ish, it's just not documented that way. I'll add a patch updating the documentation to the series. > Cheers, > Randall > > -- Brief whoami: NonStop&UNIX developer since approximately > UNIX(421664400)/NonStop(211288444200000000) > -- In my real life, I talk too much. > > > > >
