Hi Elijah, On Mon, 6 Dec 2021, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:57 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * en/keep-cwd (2021-12-01) 11 commits > > - t2501: simplify the tests since we can now assume desired behavior > > - dir: new flag to remove_dir_recurse() to spare the original_cwd > > - dir: avoid incidentally removing the original_cwd in remove_path() > > - stash: do not attempt to remove startup_info->original_cwd > > - rebase: do not attempt to remove startup_info->original_cwd > > - clean: do not attempt to remove startup_info->original_cwd > > - symlinks: do not include startup_info->original_cwd in dir removal > > - unpack-trees: add special cwd handling > > - unpack-trees: refuse to remove startup_info->original_cwd > > - setup: introduce startup_info->original_cwd > > - t2501: add various tests for removing the current working directory > > > > Many git commands that deal with working tree files try to remove a > > directory that becomes empty (i.e. "git switch" from a branch that > > has the directory to another branch that does not would attempt > > remove all files in the directory and the directory itself). This > > drops users into an unfamiliar situation if the command was run in > > a subdirectory that becomes subject to removal due to the command. > > The commands have been taught to keep an empty directory if it is > > the directory they were started in to avoid surprising users. > > Very nicely written summary. > > > > > Needs review. > > There are some comments on earlier rounds; the latest one needs a > > serious review or at least Acks from past commentors. > > source: <pull.1140.v5.git.git.1638340854.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> > > If it helps, there are two parts to the review: > - Do we want this feature? Not that you need yet another "Yay" in favor of this, but... yes, I think we very much want this feature. (I even went so far as to adopt the idea into the Scalar patch series as of its fifth iteration.) Ciao, Dscho
