Thomas Gummerer <[email protected]> writes:
> Currently 'git worktree add <path>' creates a new branch named after the
> basename of the <path>, that matches the HEAD of whichever worktree we
> were on when calling "git worktree add <path>".
>
> It's sometimes useful to have 'git worktree add <path> behave more like
> the dwim machinery in 'git checkout <new-branch>', i.e. check if the new
> branch name uniquely matches the branch name of a remote-tracking
> branch, and if so check out that branch and set the upstream to the
> remote-tracking branch.
This paragraph was a bit hard to sympathize because it was not
obvious that the new feature still assumes how <path> is used to
compute the name of the new branch. Perhaps if it were written like
so:
check if the new branch name, derived from the basename of
the <path>, uniquely matches the branch name of ...
I would not have had to read it twice to understand what was going
on.
> +--[no-]guess-remote::
> + With `add`, instead of creating a new branch from HEAD when
> + `<commit-ish>` is not given, if there exists a tracking branch
> + in exactly one remote matching the basename of the path, base
> + the new branch on the remote-tracking branch, and mark the
> + remote-tracking branch as "upstream" from the new branch.
> +
Would
git worktree add --guess-remote <path> <branch>
be an error? It is allowed as long as <branch> and the basename of
the <path> matches? The option is silently ignored? Something
else?
I am reacting to "with `add`" part of this desciption. I wouldn't
be asking if it said "With `worktree add <path>` without <branch>",
as that would make the scenario I am wondering about automatically
"undefined". Yes, we should strive for leaving things undefined as
little as practically possible, but at least saying something like
"without <branch>" explicitly there would make sure that readers
know in what scenario this option is meant to be used a bit better.
> @@ -389,6 +392,13 @@ static int add(int ac, const char **av, const char
> *prefix)
> int n;
> const char *s = worktree_basename(path, &n);
> opts.new_branch = xstrndup(s, n);
> + if (guess_remote) {
> + struct object_id oid;
> + const char *remote =
> + unique_tracking_name(opts.new_branch, &oid);
> + if (remote)
> + branch = remote;
> + }
> }
I think the answer is "silently ignored", as the above hunk is
inside "if (ac < 2 && !opts.new_branch && !opts.detach)".
