On March 2, 2018 10:39 PM, Nguy?n Thái Ng?c Duy wrote: > This is something we could do to improve the situation when a user manually > moves a worktree and not follow the update process (we have had the first > reported case [1]). Plus a bit cleanup in gc. > > I think this is something we should do until we somehow make the user > aware that the worktree is broken as soon as they move a worktree > manually. But there's some more work to get there. > > [1] http://public-inbox.org/git/%3Caa98f187-4b1a-176d-2a1b- > 826c995776cd@xxxxxxxxx%3E I wonder whether the OT thread discussion about branch annotation may have some value here. For some repositories I manage, I have received questions about whether there was some way to know that a branch in the clone was associated with a worktree "at any point in the past", which, once the worktree has been pruned, is not derivable in a formal computational sense - there may be specific conditions where it is. Perhaps, if that line of development moves forward, that we should considering annotating the worktree-created branch to help with our pruning process and to identify where the branch originated. Just a thought. Cheers, Randall -- Brief whoami: NonStop developer since approximately NonStop(211288444200000000) UNIX developer since approximately 421664400 -- In my real life, I talk too much.
