Re: [PATCH] worktree: add: introduce the --name option

From: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@ack.tf>
Date: Jul 20, 2016, 06:41 UTC
Message-ID: <20160720064120.GE28551@kwain>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cQ5eGoNFa90__ay+Y7AMP5Zd1VUDXWFCfU1-XX3oEYAkg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Eric,

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:52:42PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@ack.tf> writes:
> >> Adds a --name option allowing to specify the name of a worktree when
> >> creating it. This allows to have multiple worktrees in directories
> >> having the same name (e.g. project0/foo, project1/foo etc...). This
> >> commit keeps the previous behaviour by making it the default value, i.e.
> >> by using $(basename <path>) as the worktree name when the --name option
> >> isn't used.
> >
> > Hmm, is this related to an earlier discussion
> >
> >     https://public-inbox.org/git/20160625051548.95564-1-barret%40brennie.ca/
> >
> > in any way, or is it an independent invention?
> >
> > The conclusion of that discussion thread was roughly "users
> > shouldn't even _care_ about the name, and if they have to use name
> > to identify the worktrees to do certain things right now, reducing
> > the need for such 'certain things', not making it easy to give a
> > user-defined name to a worktree, is the way to go", IIRC.
> 
> Yes, that's correct. The discussion wandered a bit before starting to
> converge at [1] and concluding at [2].
> 
> [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig%2BcRNUZZBw%3DF-Q2f3Ehc-8T2iBp4kvDusNRGv4ea5nihQVQ%40mail.gmail.com/
> [2]: https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig%2BcSEwib1iFyWE5h8-qTbsAC%2BzsaSDSYQnv6otWoOOjWAeA%40mail.gmail.com/

Thanks for the links, I've had a look at the discussion. The problem that raised it was a bit different: it was about reorganizing projects and directory trees, no about creating a new worktree with the same basename as an existing one. I've also had a look at 080739b, introducing find_worktree(), but I don't think that would solve the issue either.

So we've left with two solutions: being able to specify the worktree name or having an arbitrary ID (plus some modifications to `git worktree list`) as you proposed. I guess you prefer the later solution. Is there any plan to do this, or anything in progress?

Thanks,

-- 
Antoine