Re: [PATCH] builtin/worktree.c: add option for setting worktree name

> On Jun 25, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> Barret Rennie <barret@brennie.ca> writes:
> 
>>> What is "the name for the worktree"? Is it the directory where it lives in?
>>> Is it how it is listed with 'git worktree list'?
>> 
>> The name of the worktree is the name of the created directory in
>> `.git/worktrees`.
>> 
>>> How is --name different from the <path> argument?
>> 
>> Currently, if you run:
>> 	
>> 	git worktree add /my/worktree/checkout <branch>
>> 
>> you get a worktree "named" checkout, i.e., `.git/worktrees/checkout`. The
>> idea with this patch is to allow you use a more specific name when you would
>> otherwise have mulitiple worktrees of the form `checkout`, `checkout1`, etc.
>> 
>> That is, you could do
>> 
>> 	git worktree add --name branch1 /worktrees/branch1/src branch1
>> 	git worktree add --name branch2 /worktrees/branch2/src branch2
>> 	git worktree add --name branch3 /worktrees/branch3/src branch3
>> 
>> and have `.git/worktrees/branch1`, `.git/worktrees/branch2` and
>> `.git/worktrees/branch3` instead of `.git/worktrees/src`,
>> `.git/worktrees/src1`, `.git/worktrees/src2`. That way, it becomes more clear
>> when poking inside `.git/worktrees` which directory points to which checkout.
> 
> That is a way better justification of "why we need to use a custom
> name, not the default one" than the previous "with this we can use a
> custom name".
> 
> As long as you can justify why having anything underneath branch$n/
> is necessary, that is.  In your explanation above, it is still
> unclear why you need a checkout at /worktrees/branch$n/src/, and why
> it would not work if it is at /worktrees/branch$n/.

> 
> Note that I am not saying "there cannot be a good reason, do not add
> this feature" when I say "it is unclear why".  I am encouraging you
> and others in this discussion thread to find good use cases for the
> proposed new feature and come up with materials to help improving
> the documentation part of the patch.  That way, the users with
> similar needs can find how the feature is supposed to be used and
> understand the feature better.
> 
> I suspect that this new feature might be useful when two more more
> interdependent projects (they could be organized as submodules in a
> superproject, but they can be independent checkouts of different
> projects) are used together.  Imagine frotz and nitfol projects, and
> without fancier setup to have multiple checkouts, you may be
> expected (by these two projects) to check them out like so:
> 
>    $top/frotz/
>    $top/libs/nitfol/
> 
> where $top can be anywhere but to clarify the line of thought, lets
> pick a concrete place, say $HOME/xyzzy.  So without worktrees, you
> would have
> 
>    $HOME/xyzzy/frotz
>    $HOME/xyzzy/libs/nitfol
> 
> Now, if you do the worktree, you may still want the relative
> structure between these two, i.e. if you want to work on two
> different branch combinations of the whole thing, you would want to
> do this:
> 
>    $HOME/xyzzy-1/frotz       - borrow from $HOME/xyzzy/frotz
>    $HOME/xyzzy-1/libs/nitfol - likewise for nitfol
> 
>    $HOME/xyzzy-2/frotz       - borrow from $HOME/xyzzy/frotz
>    $HOME/xyzzy-2/libs/nitfol - likewise for nitfol
> 
> where xyzzy-$n may be for topic-$n branch both in frotz and nitfol.
> 
> And explained that way, it becomes clearer that you would want to
> name $HOME/xyzzy-1/frotz worktree after "topic-1", not the default
> name you would get "frotz" (because the default gives you the leaf
> level name of the newly created worktree).
> 
> After the discussion above (which may or may not match what you
> raised this topic for), I think a feature to let you override the
> default name makes sense.
> 
> It just needs to be explained better to help the users when the
> feature eventually becomes part of Git.  Also, others (especially
> Duy) may have even better ideas (e.g. instead of having to always
> use --name to give custom name for all worktrees, set a "hint" just
> once to help the logic that comes up with the default name give a
> better name), so while the feature may be desirable, your exact
> implementation may or may not be what we eventually want to adopt.