On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 01:13:04PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > 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. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, will do. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
