On November 29, 2024 6:14 PM, Caleb White writes: >On Fri Nov 29, 2024 at 4:54 PM CST, rsbecker wrote: >> General comment on this series: Is there a mechanism of preserving >> existing functionality for those of us who have existing scripts that >> depend on the existing branch and worktree naming? > >Existing worktrees will continue to work as they do now. The only change is the >worktree id for new worktrees. However, there's not an option to preserve the >existing behavior for new worktrees (nor do I think there should be). I do not agree. Companies that have existing scripts should have some way to preserve their investment. Just saying "No more worktrees for you" is not really considerate. >As stated in the v1 threads, the worktree id is already not guaranteed to be equal to >the worktree/branch name (there's several ways that this can occur), so it's buggy >behavior for scripts to make this assumption. >Any script that needs the worktree id should be parsing it from the `.git` file, `git rev- >parse --git-dir`, or (with the changes in this >series) `git worktree list`. I agree, but I think having some kind of notice beyond one release is important, rather than pulling the rug out from under people. Just my suggestion that there should be a migration period of this critical function. --Randall
