On December 8, 2022 4:41 PM, Jacob Abel wrote: >Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] worktree: Support `--orphan` when creating new >worktrees > >Apologies for the delay on the v4 patch. Some unexpected personal stuff has kept >me away from working on this. I expect v4 to be out in the next few days. > >Additionally, I've been doing some reading after writing this reply [1]. I've realised >I had a misunderstanding about how HEAD is managed. I don't think it changes the >conclusion of the reply (which is that rolling `--orphan` into DWYM could lead to >confusing behavior for users) however I think some additional changes might be >warranted: > >* Add some additional text output to `worktree add` when we DWYM to make it > clearer what action we end up making. Could possibly be hidden under a > "verbose" flag. >* Annotate what HEAD we are looking at (worktree HEAD vs git repo HEAD) in > conditions where this could matter. >* Expanding HEAD when it's an invalid ref (instead of just `invalid ref: HEAD`). >* Add a hint when using `worktree add`, with a bare git repo, HEAD points to an > invalid ref, not in a worktree, and other branches exist in the repo. The hint > would suggest using `git branch -m <branch>` to change the HEAD to an existing > branch. >* Add a hint when there are no local branches and the user is trying to create a > worktree off a local branch which has a remote counterpart. > >I don't necessarily think any of these changes should hold up this patchset but I >think they could be worthwhile changes for the future. > >And in the meantime, below are the anticipated changes for the next revision. Let >me know if it looks like I've forgotten anything. > >Anticipated changes from v3: > * Fix mistake in SYNOPSIS and `--help`. Patch for this change can be found > in [2], by courtesy of Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. > * Collapsed sequential if statements into if-else chain & simplified > conditions as requested in [2]. > * Simplified tests for mutually exclusive options and removed duplicate > `-B/--detach` test case. Patch for this change can be found in [3], > by courtesy of Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. > * Remove references to `git-switch`. Behavior is now explained fully in docs > instead. Changes to the docs suggested in [4], by courtesy of Eric Sunshine. > * Updated test case to use `test_path_is_missing` instead of `! test -d` [5]. > * Updated signature for `make_worktree_orphan()` and changed > `const char *orphan_branch` in `struct add_opts` to `int orphan` (boolean) > to simplify the patch and maintain consistency with other flags [6]. > * Added `advise()` to common cases where `--orphan` is desired [7] to address > concerns brought up in [8][9]. Slight change from `HEAD` to `branch` as > `HEAD` causes existing behavior to break. > * Added tests to verify `--lock` and `--reason` work properly with > the newly added `--orphan` flag. > * Added tests to verify that the orphan advise [7] is emitted only at the > proper times. > * Added the new advice to the docs, advice.c/h, and switched to use > `advise_if_enabled()` as requested in [10]. > * Added tests to verify the changes [7] do not interfere with existing > behavior. ex: creating a worktree from a remote branch when HEAD is > an orphan. > >1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20221123042052.t42jmsqjxgx2k3th@phi/ >2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/221115.86edu3kfqz.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >3. https://lore.kernel.org/git/221116.86a64rkdcj.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >4. >https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cQiyd9yGE_XpPZmzLQnNDMypnrEgkV7nqRZZn >3j6E0APQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >5. https://lore.kernel.org/git/221115.86iljfkjjo.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >6. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20221119025701.syuscuoqjuqhqsoz@phi/ >7. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20221119034728.m4kxh4tdpof7us7j@phi/ >8. >https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cTTn764ObHJuw8epOtBdTUwocVRV=tLieCa4zf- >PGCegw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >9. https://lore.kernel.org/git/221117.86sfihj3mw.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >10. https://lore.kernel.org/git/221123.86a64ia6bx.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I am not sure this is entirely related, but there is a gap in worktree configuration, specifically includeIf that I was working on, but suspended waiting for worktree code to stabilize. Do you have a sense as to whether this might run into this topic? Regards, Randall
