On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 1:08 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Having said all that, I'm not overly opposed to this patch, especially > since your main focus is on getting the reftable backend integrated, > and because the changes (and ugliness) introduced by this patch are > entirely self-contained and private to worktree.c, so are not a > show-stopper by any means. Rather, I wanted to get down to writing > what I think would be a better future approach if someone gets around > to tackling it. (There is no pressing need at the moment, and that > someone doesn't have to be you.) I forgot to mention that, if you reroll for some reason, the get_worktrees()/get_worktrees_internal() dance might deserve an in-source NEEDSWORK comment explaining that get_worktrees_internal() exists to work around the shortcoming that a corruption-tolerant function for retrieving worktree metadata (for use by the "repair" function) does not yet exist.
