On Tue, Nov 15 2022, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 4:13 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10 2022, Jacob Abel wrote: >> > Adds support for creating an orphan branch when adding a new worktree. >> > This functionality is equivalent to git switch's --orphan flag. >> > >> > The original reason this feature was implemented was to allow a user >> > to initialise a new repository using solely the worktree oriented >> > workflow. Example usage included below. >> > >> > $ GIT_DIR=".git" git init --bare >> > $ git worktree add --orphan master master/ >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Abel <jacobabel@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > +Create a worktree containing an orphan branch named `<branch>` with a >> > +clean working directory. See `--orphan` in linkgit:git-switch[1] for >> > +more details. >> >> Seeing as "git switch" is still marked "EXPERIMENTAL", it may be prudent >> in general to avoid linking to it in lieu of "git checkout". >> >> In this case in particular though the "more details" are almost >> completely absent from the "git-switch" docs, and they don't (which is >> their won flaw) link to the more detailed "git-checkout" docs. >> >> But for this patch, it seems much better to link to the "checkout" docs, >> no? > > Sorry, no. The important point here is that the --orphan option being > added to `git worktree add` closely follows the behavior of `git > switch --orphan`, which is quite different from the behavior of `git > checkout --orphan`. > > The `git switch --orphan` documentation doesn't seem particularly > lacking; it correctly describes the (very) simplified behavior of that > command over `git checkout --orphan`. I might agree that there isn't > much reason to link to git-switch for "more details", though, since > there isn't really anything else that needs to be said. Aside from what it says now: 1/2 of what I'm saying is that linking to it while it says it's "EXPERIMENTAL" might be either jumping the gun. Or maybe we should just declare it non-"EXPERIMENTAL", but in any case this unrelated topic might want to avoid that altogether and just link to the "checkout" version. A quick grep of our docs (for linkgit:git-switch) that this would be the first mention outside of user-manual.txt where we link to it when it's not in the context of "checkout or switch", or where we're explaining something switch-specific (i.e. the "suggestDetachingHead" advice). Having said that I don't really care, just a suggestion... > If we did want to say something else here, we might copy one sentence > from the `git checkout --orphan` documentation: > > The first commit made on this new branch will have no parents and > it will be the root of a new history totally disconnected from all > the other branches and commits. > > The same sentence could be added to `git switch --orphan` > documentation, but that's outside the scope of this patch series (thus > can be done later by someone). I think I was partially confused by skimming the SYNOPSIS and thinking this supported <start-point> like checkout, which as I found in https://lore.kernel.org/git/221115.86edu3kfqz.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ just seems to be a missing assertion where we want to die() if that's provided in this mode. What I also found a bit confusing (but maybe it's just me) is that the "with a clean working directory" seemed at first to be drawing a distinction between this behavior and that of "git switch", but from poking at it some more it seems to be expressing "this is like git switch's --orphan" with that. I think instead of "clean working tree" it would be better to talk about "tracked files", as "git switch --orphan" does, which AFAICT is what it means. But then again the reason "switch" does that is because you have *existing* tracked files, which inherently doesn't apply for "worktree". Hrm. So, I guess it depends on your mental model of this operation, but at least I think it's more intuitive to explain it in terms of "git checkout --orphan", not "git switch --orphan". I.e.: Create a worktree containing an orphan branch named `<branch>`. This works like linkgit:git-checkout[1]'s `--orphan' option, except '<start-point>` isn't supported, and the "clear the index" doesn't apply (as "worktree add" will always have a new index)". Whereas defining this in terms of git-switch's "All tracked files are removed" might just be more confusing. What files? Since it's "worktree add" there weren't any in the first place. Anyway, I don't mind it as it is, but maybe the above write-up helps for #leftoverbits if we ever want to unify these docs. I.e. AFAICT we could: * Link from git-worktree to git-checkout, saying the above * Link from git-switch to git-checkout, ditto, but that we also "remove tracked files [of the current HEAD]". >> > +test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/-b mutually exclusive' ' >> > + test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle -b poodle bamboo >> > +' >> > + >> > +test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/-B mutually exclusive' ' >> > + test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle -B poodle bamboo >> > +' >> > + >> > +test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/--detach mutually exclusive' ' >> > + test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle --detach bamboo >> > +' >> > + >> > +test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/--no-checkout mutually exclusive' ' >> > + test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle --no-checkout bamboo >> > +' >> > + >> > +test_expect_success '"add" -B/--detach mutually exclusive' ' >> > + test_must_fail git worktree add -B poodle --detach bamboo main >> > +' >> > + >> >> This would be much better as a for-loop: >> >> for opt in -b -B ... >> do >> test_expect_success "...$opt" '<test here, uses $opt>' >> done >> >> Note the ""-quotes for the description, and '' for the test, that's not >> a mistake, we eval() the latter. > > Such a loop would need to be more complex than this, wouldn't it, to > account for all the combinations? I'd normally agree about the loop, > but given that it requires extra complexity, I don't really mind > seeing the individual tests spelled out manually in this case; they're > dead simple to understand as written. I don't feel strongly either > way, but I also don't want to ask for extra work from the patch author > for a subjective change. Yeah, it's probably not worth it. This is partially cleaning up existing tests, but maybe: diff --git a/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh index 93c340f4aff..5acfd48f418 100755 --- a/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh +++ b/t/t2400-worktree-add.sh @@ -298,37 +298,21 @@ test_expect_success '"add" no auto-vivify with --detach and <branch> omitted' ' test_must_fail git -C mish/mash symbolic-ref HEAD ' -test_expect_success '"add" -b/-B mutually exclusive' ' - test_must_fail git worktree add -b poodle -B poodle bamboo main -' - -test_expect_success '"add" -b/--detach mutually exclusive' ' - test_must_fail git worktree add -b poodle --detach bamboo main -' - -test_expect_success '"add" -B/--detach mutually exclusive' ' - test_must_fail git worktree add -B poodle --detach bamboo main -' - -test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/-b mutually exclusive' ' - test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle -b poodle bamboo -' - -test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/-B mutually exclusive' ' - test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle -B poodle bamboo -' - -test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/--detach mutually exclusive' ' - test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle --detach bamboo -' - -test_expect_success '"add" --orphan/--no-checkout mutually exclusive' ' - test_must_fail git worktree add --orphan poodle --no-checkout bamboo -' - -test_expect_success '"add" -B/--detach mutually exclusive' ' - test_must_fail git worktree add -B poodle --detach bamboo main -' +test_wt_add_excl() { + local opts="$@" && + test_expect_success "'worktree add' with '$opts' has mutually exclusive options" ' + test_must_fail git worktree add $opts + ' +} +test_wt_add_excl -b poodle -B poodle bamboo main +test_wt_add_excl -b poodle --orphan poodle bamboo +test_wt_add_excl -b poodle --detach bamboo main +test_wt_add_excl -B poodle --detach bamboo main +test_wt_add_excl -B poodle --detach bamboo main +test_wt_add_excl -B poodle --orphan poodle bamboo +test_wt_add_excl --orphan poodle --detach bamboo +test_wt_add_excl --orphan poodle --no-checkout bamboo +test_wt_add_excl --orphan poodle bamboo main test_expect_success '"add -B" fails if the branch is checked out' ' git rev-parse newmain >before && I re-arranged that a bit, but probably not worth a loop. I *did* spot in doing that that if I sort the options I end up with a duplicate test, i.e. we test "-B poodle --detach bamboo main" twice. That seems to be added by mistake in 2/2, i.e. it's the existing test you can see in the diff context, just added at the end.
