On January 14, 2023 10:09 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >Jacob Abel <jacobabel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> git worktree add --orphan -b topic main >>> git worktree add --orphan -B topic main >> >> I am hesitant to add these as they break away from the syntax used in >> `git switch` and `git checkout`. > >Not that I care too deeply, but doesn't it introduce end-user confusion if we try to >be compatible with "git checkout --orphan <branch>", while allowing this to be >compatible with the default choice of the branch name done by "git worktree >add"? "--orphan" in "git checkout" behaves similar to "-b|-B" in that it always >wants a name, but "git worktree add" wants to make it optional. > >By the way "--orphan" in checkout|switch wants to take a name for itself, e.g. > > git checkout --orphan $name [$commit] > git checkout -b $name [$commit] > git checkout -B $name [$commit] > >so it is impossible to force their "--orphan" to rename an existing branch, which is >probalby a design mistake we may want to fix. > >In any case, as I said, I do not care too deeply which way you guys decide to go, >because I think the whole "orphan" UI is a design mistake that instills a broken >mental model to its users [*]. > >But let's wait a bit more to see which among > >(1) git worktree add [[--orphan] -b $branch] $path > This allows --orphan to act as a modifier to existing -b, > >(2) git worktree add [(--orphan|-b) $branch] $path > This allows --orphan to be another mode of -b, or > >(3) git worktree add [--orphan [$branch]|(-b $branch)] $path > This allows --orphan to default to $(basename $path) > >people prefer. > > >[Footnote] > >* I am not saying that it is wrong or useless to keep an unrelated > history, especially one that records trees that have no relevance > to the main history like created with "switch --orphan", in the > same repository. Allowing "git switch --orphan" to create such a > separate history in the same repository blurs the distinction. It > would help newbies to form the right mental model if they start a > separate repository that the separate history originates in, and > pull from it to bootstrap the unrelated history in the local > repository. I am wondering whether --detached is a more semantically consistent option. While --orphan has meaning in checkout (not one I ever liked), detached makes more sense as a description of what is intended here - as in not connected. --Randall
