On 22/11/15 07:19PM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:27 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15 2022, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 4:13 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > > > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> 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. > > Even better would be for the documentation added by this patch to be > self-contained and not bother linking anywhere to further explain > --orphan. That would satisfy your concern, I think, as well as my > concern that `git checkout --orphan` documentation is inappropriate > for `git worktree add --orphan`. > > > > 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. > > I haven't read v3 yet, so I wasn't aware that the SYNOPSIS hadn't been > updated to match the reworked --orphan behavior implemented by v3, but > I can certainly understand how that would have led you astray. You're > quite correct that the SYNOPSIS should not be saying that <commit-ish> > is allowed with --orphan. > > > 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. > > "clean working directory" may indeed be ambiguous and confusing. It's > not necessarily clear if it means "no changes to tracked files" or "no > files in directory". We should use more precise terminology. > > > 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. > > I would find it clearer not to talk about or reference `git checkout > --orphan` at all. And, as mentioned above, it shouldn't need to > reference `git switch --orphan` either. How about something like this > for the description of the `add` subcommand? > > Create a worktree containing no files and with an empty index, and > associated with a new orphan branch named `<branch>`. The first > commit made on this new branch will have no parents and will be > the root of a new history disconnected from any other branches. > > And then to document the --orphan command: > > With `add`, make the new worktree and index empty, and associate > the worktree with a new orphan branch named `<new-branch>`. I really like this approach. My original intent was that by referencing git-checkout, users could check the source documentation for the underlying command. Since we now call neither `git checkout` or `git switch`, just documenting the behavior outright seems like the best course of action.
