On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 01:14:51AM +0000, Caleb White wrote: > On Sun Oct 27, 2024 at 7:20 PM CDT, Taylor Blau wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:29:47PM +0000, Caleb White wrote: > >> A new extension, `relativeWorktrees`, is added to indicate that at least > >> one worktree in the repository has been linked with relative paths. This > >> extension is automatically set when a worktree is created or repaired > >> using the `--relative-paths` option, or when the > >> `worktree.useRelativePaths` config is set to `true`. > > > > This approach feels like a very heavy hammer. I wonder if writing > > worktrees with relative paths by default was too aggressive of a step, > > and if we should instead make the new behavior opt-in rather than > > opt-out. > > The v4 series of the original round added the cli options and updated > the relative worktrees to be opt-in. This patch keeps the git default > behavior of writing worktrees with absolute paths, and users can opt-in > via the `--relative-paths` cli option or the `worktree.useRelativePaths` > config. OK, I think the mistake here is mine. I did not see https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfrp4onjd.fsf@gitster.g/ when triaging the list after Junio went offline for vacation. Had I not lost that email, I would not have merged the earlier round without more discussion. That being said, it is still greatly appreciated when contributors can follow the WC reports when they have patches that are moving through the various integration branches. That way you can see my "Will merge to 'next'" comment and say "please hold, I am working on a new round that is substantially different / uncovers some backwards incompatibility / etc." and we can wait appropriately. Now we are in the rather unfortunate situation of having merged something to 'master' that (with the additional information that I missed earlier) it is not clear that I would have merged in its existing form at the time. But that's OK, and we can figure out a path forward here. I am just trying to say that this highlights the importance of following the WC reports regularly to catch cases where the maintainer missed some important piece of information. > > Saying that new worktrees are written with relative paths, and that > > creating a worktree with a new version of Git breaks reading the > > repository on older versions feels very unsatisfying to me. > > > >> The `relativeWorktrees` extension ensures older Git versions do not > >> attempt to automatically prune worktrees with relative paths, as they > >> would not not recognize the paths as being valid. > > > > This is the piece of information that I was missing in the earlier round > > when I merged that down. I think we need to take a step back and think > > about how to make this change safely in a way that doesn't break > > compatibility with older versions of Git. > > Adding the extension was the direction suggested by Junio in the > previous round. Git did not account for the possibility of the linking > files containing relative paths, so there's really no way to make this > change without breaking compatibility with older versions of Git. Git > had to be taught how to handle files that could contain either absolute > or relative paths. Yep, that makes sense. My preference here would be to make the new behavior opt *in*, rather than opt-out, so that: - Users who do not experience problems with writing worktrees that have absolute paths can continue to do so without any changes. - Users who use worktrees *and* do not write relative paths can upgrade between successive versions without requiring a new repository extension that would break older Git versions. - That we only add that extension to the repository's configuration if and when the user has opted into the new behavior. Reading this new series, I *think* that is the behavior that you settled on, which seems quite reasonable to me. Can you confirm that I'm reading this all correctly? Assuming so, I think that we are in a reasonable position[^1] to review this series instead of having to back out the new behavior. Thanks for bearing with me here, I am quite embarrassed to have missed Junio's mail that I mentioned earlier, but I appreciate your patience while we sort this out together. Thanks, Taylor [^1]: Making sure that it gets in before 2.48, and is not dropped, though we still have quite a lot of time on that front.
