On 22/11/15 11:35PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > 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]". Apologies for the mistake in the SYNOPSIS. As mentioned in the other replies I've updated it as you indicated to correct that. As for a path forwards on the referencing of either git-checkout or git-switch from git-worktree, I think I'm leaning towards Eric's approach (in his reply to this message) where we don't reference either and fully outline the behavior itself. > > >> > +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. This is much clearer and more succinct. I've applied this to 2/2 for v4.
