RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] Ensure unique worktree ids across repositories

From: rsbecker@nexbridge.com <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>
Date: Nov 29, 2024, 23:17 UTC
Message-ID: <00c501db42b4$ea97e050$bfc7a0f0$@nexbridge.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5Z1L479JERN.80KZ7NA9BWNJ@pm.me>

On November 29, 2024 6:14 PM, Caleb White writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

>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.

Show 6 quoted lines

>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