On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 02:37:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Rafael Silva <rafaeloliveira.cs@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > The output of `worktree list` command is extended to mark a locked
> > worktree with `(locked)` text. This is used to communicate to the
> > user that a linked worktree is locked instead of learning only when
> > attempting to remove it.
> >
> > This is the output of the worktree list with locked marker:
> >
> > $ git worktree list
> > /repo/to/main abc123 [master]
> > /path/to/unlocked-worktree1 456def [brancha]
> > /path/to/locked-worktree 123abc (detached HEAD) (locked)
>
>
> In our log message, we tend NOT to say "This commit does X" or "X is
> done", because such a statement is often insufficient to illustrate
> if the commit indeed does X, and explain why it is a good thing to
> do X in the first place.
>
> Instead, we
>
> - first explain that the current system does not do X (in present
> tense, so we do NOT say "previously we did not do X"), then
>
> - explain why doing X would be a good thing, and finally
>
> - give an order to the codebase to start doing X.
>
>
> For this change, it might look like this:
>
> The "git worktree list" shows the absolute path to the working
> tree, the commit that is checked out and the name of the branch.
> It is not immediately obvious which of the worktrees, if any,
> are locked.
>
> "git worktree remove" refuses to remove a locked worktree with
> an error message. If "git worktree list" told which worktrees
> are locked in its output, the user would not even attempt to
> remove such a worktree.
>
> Teach "git worktree list" to append "(locked)" to its output.
> The output from the command becomes like so:
>
> $ git worktree list
> /repo/to/main abc123 [master]
> /path/to/unlocked-worktree1 456def [brancha]
> /path/to/locked-worktree 123abc (detached HEAD) (locked)
>
Thank you for such detailed explanation. I totally agree that it seems
much better to organise the commit message this way, I will definitely
include this message (or something very similar) when resending these patches.
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/git-worktree.txt b/Documentation/git-worktree.txt
> > index 32e8440cde..a3781dd664 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/git-worktree.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/git-worktree.txt
> > @@ -96,8 +96,9 @@ list::
> >
> > List details of each working tree. The main working tree is listed first,
> > followed by each of the linked working trees. The output details include
> > -whether the working tree is bare, the revision currently checked out, and the
> > -branch currently checked out (or "detached HEAD" if none).
> > +whether the working tree is bare, the revision currently checked out, the
> > +branch currently checked out (or "detached HEAD" if none), and whether
> > +the worktree is locked.
>
> At the first glance, the above gave me an impression that you'd be
> adding "(unlocked)" or "(locked)" for each working tree, but that is
> not the case. How about keeping the original sentence intact, and
> adding something like "For a locked worktree, the marker (locked) is
> also shown at the end"?
Yes, it sounds good.
>
> > diff --git a/builtin/worktree.c b/builtin/worktree.c
> > index 99abaeec6c..8ad2cdd2f9 100644
> > --- a/builtin/worktree.c
> > +++ b/builtin/worktree.c
> > @@ -676,8 +676,12 @@ static void show_worktree(struct worktree *wt, int path_maxlen, int abbrev_len)
> > } else
> > strbuf_addstr(&sb, "(error)");
> > }
> > - printf("%s\n", sb.buf);
> >
> > + if (!is_main_worktree(wt) &&
> > + worktree_lock_reason(wt))
> > + strbuf_addstr(&sb, " (locked)");
>
> Is this because for the primary worktree, worktree_lock_reason()
> will always yield true?
>
> ... goes and looks ...
>
> Ah, OK, the callers are not even allowed to ask the question on the
> primary one. That's a bit strange API but OK.
>
> Writing that on a single line would perfectly be readable, by the
> way.
>
> if (!is_main_worktree(wt) && worktree_lock_reason(wt))
> strbuf_addstr(&sb, " (locked)");
Agreed. will be much better to have it in a single line.
>
> > + printf("%s\n", sb.buf);
> > strbuf_release(&sb);
> > }
