Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add a place for (not) sharing stuff between worktrees
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:55 AM Duy Nguyen wrote: > > And with that said, I wonder if the "local" part should be feature agnostic, > > or if we want to be "local" for worktrees, "local" for remotes, "local" > > for submodules (i.e. our own refs vs submodule refs). > > You lost me here. Yeah, me too after rereading. :P I think the "local" part always implies that there is a part that is not local and depending on the feature you call it remote or other worktree. When writing this comment I briefly wondered if we want to combine the local aspects of the various features. However the "local" part really depends on the feature (e.g. a ref on a different worktree is still local from the here/remote perspective or from the superproject/submodule perspective), so I think I was misguided. > > > think as long as the word "worktree" is in there, people would notice > > > the difference. > > > > That makes sense. But is refs/worktree shared or local? It's not quite > > obvious to me, as I could have refs/worktree//master > > instead when it is shared, so I tend to favor refs/local-worktree/ a bit > > more, but that is more typing. :/ > > OK I think mixing the two patches will different purposes messes you > (or me) up ;-) possible. > > refs/worktrees/xxx (and refs/main/xxx) are about visibility from other > worktrees. Or like Eric put it, they are simply aliases. These refs > are not shared because if they are, you can already see them without > new "ref mount points" like this. > > refs/worktree (previously refs/local) is also per-worktree but it's > specifically because you can't have per-worktree inside "refs/" (the > only exception so far is refs/bisect which is hard coded). You can > have refs outside "refs/" (like HEAD or FETCH_HEAD) and they will not > be shared, but they cannot be iterated while those inside refs/ can > be. This is more about deciding what to share and I believe is really > worktree-specific and only matters to _current_ worktree. > > Since refs/worktree is per-worktree, you can also view them from a > different worktree via refs/worktrees/. E.g. if you have > refs/worktree/foo then another worktree can see it via > refs/worktrees/xxx/refs/worktree/foo (besides pseudo refs like > refs/worktrees/xxx/HEAD) Ah. now I seem to understand, thanks for explaining.
Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add a place for (not) sharing stuff between worktrees
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:24 PM Stefan Beller wrote: > > > That sounds dangerous to me. There is already a concept of > > > local and remote-tracking branches. So I would think that local > > > may soon become an overused word, (just like "index" today or > > > "recursive" to a lesser extend). > > > > > > Could this special area be more explicit? > > > (refs/worktree-local/ ? or after peeking at the docs below > > > refs/un-common/ ?) > > > > refs/un-common sounds really "uncommon" :D. If refs/local is bad, I > > guess we could go with either refs/worktree-local, refs/worktree, > > refs/private, refs/per-worktree... My vote is on refs/worktree. I > > refs/worktree sounds good to me (I do not object), but I am not > overly enthused either, as when I think further worktrees and > submodules are both features with a very similar nature in that > they touch a lot of core concepts in Git, but seem to be a niche > feature for the masses for now. I think the similarity is partly because submodule feature also has to manage worktrees. My view is at some point, this "git worktree" would be good enough that it can handle submodules as well (for the worktree part only of course) > For example I could think of submodules following this addressing > mode as well: submodule//master sounds similar to the > originally proposed worktree// convention. > For now it is not quite clear to me why you would want to have > access to the submodule refs in the superproject, but maybe > the use case will come later. Yeah. In theory we could "mount" the submodule ref store to a superproject's ref store. I think it may be needed just for the same reason it's needed for worktree: error reporting. If you peek into a submodule and say "HEAD has an error", the user will get confused whether it's superproject's HEAD or a submodule's HEAD. > And with that said, I wonder if the "local" part should be feature agnostic, > or if we want to be "local" for worktrees, "local" for remotes, "local" > for submodules (i.e. our own refs vs submodule refs). You lost me here. > > > think as long as the word "worktree" is in there, people would notice > > the difference. > > That makes sense. But is refs/worktree shared or local? It's not quite > obvious to me, as I could have refs/worktree//master > instead when it is shared, so I tend to favor refs/local-worktree/ a bit > more, but that is more typing. :/ OK I think mixing the two patches will different purposes messes you (or me) up ;-) refs/worktrees/xxx (and refs/main/xxx) are about visibility from other worktrees. Or like Eric put it, they are simply aliases. These refs are not shared because if they are, you can already see them without new "ref mount points" like this. refs/worktree (previously refs/local) is also per-worktree but it's specifically because you can't have per-worktree inside "refs/" (the only exception so far is refs/bisect which is hard coded). You can have refs outside "refs/" (like HEAD or FETCH_HEAD) and they will not be shared, but they cannot be iterated while those inside refs/ can be. This is more about deciding what to share and I believe is really worktree-specific and only matters to _current_ worktree. Since refs/worktree is per-worktree, you can also view them from a different worktree via refs/worktrees/. E.g. if you have refs/worktree/foo then another worktree can see it via refs/worktrees/xxx/refs/worktree/foo (besides pseudo refs like refs/worktrees/xxx/HEAD) > As we grow the worktree feature, do we ever expect the need to > reference the current worktree? > > For example when there is a ref "test" that could be unique per > repo and in the common area, so refs/heads/test would describe > it and "test" would get there in DWIM mode. > > But then I could also delete the common ref and recreate a "test" > ref in worktree A, in worktree B however DWIMming "test" could still > refer to A's "test" as it is unique (so far) in the repository. > And maybe I would want to check if test exists locally, so I'd > want to ask for "self/test" (with "self" == "B" as that is my cwd). You probably lost me again. In theory we must be able to detect ambiguity and stop DWIMing. If you want to be ambiguity-free, you specify full ref name, starting with "refs/" which should function like "self/" because worktree design so far is always about the current worktree's view. -- Duy
Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add a place for (not) sharing stuff between worktrees
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:36 AM Duy Nguyen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:35 AM Stefan Beller wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:05 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy > > wrote: > > > > > > When multiple worktrees are used, we need rules to determine if > > > something belongs to one worktree or all of them. Instead of keeping > > > adding rules when new stuff comes, have a generic rule: > > > > > > - Inside $GIT_DIR, which is per-worktree by default, add > > > $GIT_DIR/common which is always shared. New features that want to > > > share stuff should put stuff under this directory. > > > > So that /common is a directory and you have to use it specifically > > in new code? That would be easy to overlook when coming up > > with $GIT_DIR/foo for implementing the git-foo. > > There's no easy way out. I have to do _something_ if you want to share > $GIT_DIR/foo to all worktrees. Either we have to update path.c and add > "foo" which is not even an option for external commands, or we put > "foo" in a common place, e.g. $GIT_DIR/common/foo. > > > > - Inside refs/, which is shared by default except refs/bisect, add > > > refs/local/ which is per-worktree. We may eventually move > > > refs/bisect to this new location and remove the exception in refs > > > code. > > > > That sounds dangerous to me. There is already a concept of > > local and remote-tracking branches. So I would think that local > > may soon become an overused word, (just like "index" today or > > "recursive" to a lesser extend). > > > > Could this special area be more explicit? > > (refs/worktree-local/ ? or after peeking at the docs below > > refs/un-common/ ?) > > refs/un-common sounds really "uncommon" :D. If refs/local is bad, I > guess we could go with either refs/worktree-local, refs/worktree, > refs/private, refs/per-worktree... My vote is on refs/worktree. I refs/worktree sounds good to me (I do not object), but I am not overly enthused either, as when I think further worktrees and submodules are both features with a very similar nature in that they touch a lot of core concepts in Git, but seem to be a niche feature for the masses for now. For example I could think of submodules following this addressing mode as well: submodule//master sounds similar to the originally proposed worktree// convention. For now it is not quite clear to me why you would want to have access to the submodule refs in the superproject, but maybe the use case will come later. And with that said, I wonder if the "local" part should be feature agnostic, or if we want to be "local" for worktrees, "local" for remotes, "local" for submodules (i.e. our own refs vs submodule refs). > think as long as the word "worktree" is in there, people would notice > the difference. That makes sense. But is refs/worktree shared or local? It's not quite obvious to me, as I could have refs/worktree//master instead when it is shared, so I tend to favor refs/local-worktree/ a bit more, but that is more typing. :/ == As we grow the worktree feature, do we ever expect the need to reference the current worktree? For example when there is a ref "test" that could be unique per repo and in the common area, so refs/heads/test would describe it and "test" would get there in DWIM mode. But then I could also delete the common ref and recreate a "test" ref in worktree A, in worktree B however DWIMming "test" could still refer to A's "test" as it is unique (so far) in the repository. And maybe I would want to check if test exists locally, so I'd want to ask for "self/test" (with "self" == "B" as that is my cwd). Stefan
Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add a place for (not) sharing stuff between worktrees
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:35 AM Stefan Beller wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:05 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy > wrote: > > > > When multiple worktrees are used, we need rules to determine if > > something belongs to one worktree or all of them. Instead of keeping > > adding rules when new stuff comes, have a generic rule: > > > > - Inside $GIT_DIR, which is per-worktree by default, add > > $GIT_DIR/common which is always shared. New features that want to > > share stuff should put stuff under this directory. > > So that /common is a directory and you have to use it specifically > in new code? That would be easy to overlook when coming up > with $GIT_DIR/foo for implementing the git-foo. There's no easy way out. I have to do _something_ if you want to share $GIT_DIR/foo to all worktrees. Either we have to update path.c and add "foo" which is not even an option for external commands, or we put "foo" in a common place, e.g. $GIT_DIR/common/foo. > > - Inside refs/, which is shared by default except refs/bisect, add > > refs/local/ which is per-worktree. We may eventually move > > refs/bisect to this new location and remove the exception in refs > > code. > > That sounds dangerous to me. There is already a concept of > local and remote-tracking branches. So I would think that local > may soon become an overused word, (just like "index" today or > "recursive" to a lesser extend). > > Could this special area be more explicit? > (refs/worktree-local/ ? or after peeking at the docs below > refs/un-common/ ?) refs/un-common sounds really "uncommon" :D. If refs/local is bad, I guess we could go with either refs/worktree-local, refs/worktree, refs/private, refs/per-worktree... My vote is on refs/worktree. I think as long as the word "worktree" is in there, people would notice the difference. -- Duy
Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add a place for (not) sharing stuff between worktrees
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:05 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > > When multiple worktrees are used, we need rules to determine if > something belongs to one worktree or all of them. Instead of keeping > adding rules when new stuff comes, have a generic rule: > > - Inside $GIT_DIR, which is per-worktree by default, add > $GIT_DIR/common which is always shared. New features that want to > share stuff should put stuff under this directory. So that /common is a directory and you have to use it specifically in new code? That would be easy to overlook when coming up with $GIT_DIR/foo for implementing the git-foo. > > - Inside refs/, which is shared by default except refs/bisect, add > refs/local/ which is per-worktree. We may eventually move > refs/bisect to this new location and remove the exception in refs > code. That sounds dangerous to me. There is already a concept of local and remote-tracking branches. So I would think that local may soon become an overused word, (just like "index" today or "recursive" to a lesser extend). Could this special area be more explicit? (refs/worktree-local/ ? or after peeking at the docs below refs/un-common/ ?)
Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add a place for (not) sharing stuff between worktrees
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 2:05 PM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > When multiple worktrees are used, we need rules to determine if > something belongs to one worktree or all of them. Instead of keeping > adding rules when new stuff comes, have a generic rule: > [...] > Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy > --- > diff --git a/t/t1415-worktree-refs.sh b/t/t1415-worktree-refs.sh > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ > +test_expect_success 'setup' ' > + test_commit initial && > + test_commit wt1 && > + test_commit wt2 && > + git worktree add wt1 wt1 && > + git worktree add wt2 wt2 && > + git checkout initial > +' > + > +test_expect_success 'add refs/local' ' > + git update-ref refs/local/foo HEAD && > + git -C wt1 update-ref refs/local/foo HEAD && > + git -C wt2 update-ref refs/local/foo HEAD > +' Not at all worth a re-roll, but the "add refs/local" test seems like just more setup, thus could be rolled into the "setup" test (unless it will be growing in some non-setup way in later patches).