On Thu, Nov 10 2022, Jacob Abel wrote:
So, on a second read-through...
> 'git worktree add' [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock [--reason <string>]]
> - [[-b | -B] <new-branch>] <path> [<commit-ish>]
> + [[-b | -B | --orphan] <new-branch>] <path> [<commit-ish>]
This synopsis is now at least partially wrong, and ....
> +--orphan <new-branch>::
> + With `add`, create a new orphan branch named `<new-branch>` in the new
> + worktree. See `--orphan` in linkgit:git-switch[1] for details.
> +
> --porcelain::
> ....
> #define BUILTIN_WORKTREE_ADD_USAGE \
> N_("git worktree add [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock [--reason <string>]]\n" \
> - " [[-b | -B] <new-branch>] <path> [<commit-ish>]")
> + " [[-b | -B | --orphan] <new-branch>] <path> [<commit-ish>]")
...here we say the same, but surely it's only:
git worktree add --orphan new-branch /tmp/orphan
And not e.g.:
git worktree add --orphan new-branch /tmp/orphan origin/next
Or whatever, but it's incompatible with <commit-ish>. I think this on
top should fix it up:
diff --git a/Documentation/git-worktree.txt b/Documentation/git-worktree.txt
index 1310bfb564f..3afef985154 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-worktree.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-worktree.txt
@@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ SYNOPSIS
--------
[verse]
'git worktree add' [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock [--reason <string>]]
- [[-b | -B | --orphan] <new-branch>] <path> [<commit-ish>]
+ [[-b | -B] <new-branch>] <path> [<commit-ish>]
+'git worktree add' [-f] [--lock [--reason <string>]]
+ --orphan <new-branch> <path>
'git worktree list' [-v | --porcelain [-z]]
'git worktree lock' [--reason <string>] <worktree>
'git worktree move' <worktree> <new-path>
diff --git a/builtin/worktree.c b/builtin/worktree.c
index 71786b72f6b..2b811630b3a 100644
--- a/builtin/worktree.c
+++ b/builtin/worktree.c
@@ -17,7 +17,10 @@
#define BUILTIN_WORKTREE_ADD_USAGE \
N_("git worktree add [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock [--reason <string>]]\n" \
- " [[-b | -B | --orphan] <new-branch>] <path> [<commit-ish>]")
+ " [[-b | -B] <new-branch>] <path> [<commit-ish>]"), \
+ N_("git worktree add [-f] [--lock [--reason <string>]]\n" \
+ " --orphan <new-branch> <path>")
+
#define BUILTIN_WORKTREE_LIST_USAGE \
N_("git worktree list [-v | --porcelain [-z]]")
#define BUILTIN_WORKTREE_LOCK_USAGE \
@@ -668,6 +671,9 @@ static int add(int ac, const char **av, const char *prefix)
if (opts.orphan_branch && !opts.checkout)
die(_("'%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "--orphan",
"--no-checkout");
+ if (opts.orphan_branch && ac == 2)
+ die(_("'%s' and '%s' cannot be used together"), "--orphan",
+ _("<commit-ish>"));
if (lock_reason && !keep_locked)
die(_("the option '%s' requires '%s'"), "--reason", "--lock");
if (lock_reason)
diff --git a/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
index 93c340f4aff..47461d02115 100755
--- a/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
+++ b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh
@@ -326,6 +326,10 @@ test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/--no-checkout mutually exclusive' '
test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle --no-checkout bamboo
'
+test_expect_success '"add" --orphan and <commit-ish> mutually exclusive' '
+ test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle bamboo main
+'
+
test_expect_success '"add" -B/--detach mutually exclusive' '
test_must_fail git worktree add -B poodle --detach bamboo main
'
> - if (ac < 2 && !new_branch && !opts.detach) {
> + /*
> + * As the orphan cannot be created until the contents of branch
> + * are staged, opts.orphan_branch should be treated as both a boolean
> + * indicating that `--orphan` was selected and as the name of the new
> + * orphan branch from this point on.
> + */
I've re-read this a couple of times, and I honestly still don't see what
point is trying to drive home.
So, "--orphan" is an OPT_STRING(), so it always has a value:
$ ./git worktree add --orphan
error: option `orphan' requires a value
But we init it to NULL, and above we just used it as a boolean *and*
below.
I.e. this comment would seem to me to fit with code where the reader
might be surprised that we're using "opts.orphan_branch" as a string
from then on, but we're just copying that to "new_branch", then we
always use "opts.orphan_branch" as a boolean for the rest of the
function.
I may be missing something, but I think this would probably be better
just without this comment. E.g. we use "--track", "--lock-reason"
etc. in similar ways, and those don't have a comment like that.
> + if (opts.orphan_branch) {
> + new_branch = opts.orphan_branch;
> + }
> +
> + if (ac < 2 && !new_branch && !opts.detach && !opts.orphan_branch) {
In general we shouldn't combine random "if"'s just because a a
sufficiently smart compiler could discover a way to reduce work.
But in this case these seem to be inherently connected, we always want
the not-DWIM behavior with "orphan", no?
So shouldn't this just be:
if (opts.orphan_branch) {
...
} else if (ac < 2 && !new_branch && !opts.detach) {
....
}
?
