Hi Duy, On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 05:46:12PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > > >> I'm not opposed to letting one worktree see everything, but this move > >> makes it harder to write new scripts (or new builtin commands, even) > >> that works with both single and multiple worktrees because you refer > >> to one ref (in current worktree perspective) differently. If we kill > >> of the main worktree (i.e. git init always creates a linked worktree) > >> then it's less of a problem, but still a nuisance to write > >> refs/worktree/$CURRENT/<something> everywhere. > > > > True. I gave a suggestion for the reading side, but the writing side > > would still remain tedious. > > > > I wonder if, in a worktree, we could simply convert requests to read or > > write names that do not begin with "refs/" as "refs/worktree/$CURRENT/"? > > That makes it a read/write-time alias conversion, but the actual storage > > is just vanilla (so the ref storage doesn't need to care, and > > reachability just works). > > A conversion like that is already happening, but it works at > git_path() level instead and maps anything outside refs/ to > worktrees/$CURRENT. Wouldn't you agree that the entire discussion goes into a direction that reveals that it might simply be a better idea to require commands that want to have per-worktree refs to do that explicitly? I mean, it looks to me that the harder we try to avoid that, the more problems crop up, some of that as serious as my reported data loss. I do not see any indication that trying even harder to "protect" commands from knowing that they are running in one of many worktrees is making things easier. To the contrary, I expect that direction to hold many more awful surprises for us. The same holds true for the config, BTW. I really have no love for the idea to make the config per-worktree. It just holds too many nasty opportunities for violate the Law of Least Surprises. Just to name one: imagine you check out a different branch in worktree A, then switch worktree B to the branch that A had, and all of a sudden you may end up with a different upstream! Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
