On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:38:45PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:04:42AM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Julian Phillips wrote: > > > > > > > You might want to have a look at the git-new-workdir script in > > > > contrib, it does basically the same thing. It's been there for > > > > about 10 months now. It was based on an email from Junio: > > > > > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/41513/ > > > > > > FWIW I have a patch to do something like that in "git branch" itself. > > > > > > > However, there are some caveats about using this approach, basically > > > > about the fact that there is nothing stopping you from updating refs > > > > that are currently checked out in another directory and causing > > > > yourself all sorts of pain ... the topic has cropped up a couple of > > > > times on the list since the script was added. > > > > > > I agree; maybe we should have a telltale file > > > "refs/heads/<bla>.checkedout" which is heeded by "git checkout" and > > > "git branch -d/-D", as well as update_ref() (should only update that > > > ref when it HEAD points to it)? > > > > Why not generalize this into HEAD.$branch (thus limiting to one checkout > > per branch) or HEAD.$checkoutdir ? > > Because multiple working trees for the same repository will always be a > second-class citizen. And I would rather not affect the common case too > much. OK. > Having a "lock" file which is heeded by just a few places which are > supposed to update refs (thinking about it, just update_ref() should be > enough), is at least a well-contained change. indeed, with the appropriate warnings/error messages, that makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
