Eric Sunshine writes: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Rafael Silva > <rafaeloliveira.cs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> In c57b3367be (worktree: teach `list` to annotate locked worktree, >> 2020-10-11) we taught `git worktree list` to annotate working tree that >> is locked by appending "locked" text in order to signalize to the user >> that a working tree is locked. During the review, there was some >> discussion about additional annotations and information that `list` >> command could provide to the user that has long been envisioned and >> mentioned in [2], [3] and [4]. >> >> This patch series address some of these changes by teaching >> `worktree list` to show "prunable" annotation, adding verbose mode and >> extending the --porcelain format with prunable and locked annotation as >> follow up from [1]. Additionally, it address one shortcoming for porcelain >> format to escape any newline characters (LF and CRLF) for the lock reason >> to prevent breaking format mentioned in [4] and [1] during the review >> cycle. > > Thank you for working on this. I'm happy to see these long-envisioned > enhancements finally taking shape. Before even reviewing the patches, > I decided to apply them and play with the new features, and I'm very > pleased to see that they behave exactly as I had envisioned all those > years ago. > > Very nicely done. Thank you. I'm glad to hear the patches are aligned with what you envisioned. > I'll review the patches when I finish responding to this cover letter. > Thank you for reviewing and applying the patches, really appreciate it. >> The fifth patch adds worktree_escape_reason() that accepts a (char *) >> text and returned the text with any LF or CRLF escaped. The caller is >> responsible to freeing the escaped text. This is used by the locked >> annotation in porcelain format. Currently, this is defined within >> builtin/worktree.c as I was not sure whether libfying the function as >> part of this series is a good idea. At this time it seems more sensible >> to leave the code internally and libfying later once we are confident >> about the implementation and whether it can be used in other part of the >> code base but I'm open for suggestion. > > Perhaps I misunderstand, but I had envisioned employing one of the > codebase's existing quoting/escaping functions rather than crafting a > new one from scratch. However, I'll reserve judgment until I actually > read the patch. Agreed. It make sense to reuse one of the already implemented functions from the code base. for some reason I was not able to find it. I believe this was cleared out in one of the patches replies by you and Phillip Wood. I will remove this and reuse one of the existing function on the next revision. -- Thanks Rafael
