Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] worktree: make add dwim
- From
Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 15, 2017, 08:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20171115085039.GA32324@hank>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAPig+cTYC01Y9-EvyNo9hxQRbT60iqp8MqXEB_zWBi14kPV1Ng@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/14, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Show 38 quoted lines
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/13, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> If so, as long as the new DWIM kicks in ONLY when "topic" does not > >> exist, I suspect that there is no backward compatibility worries. > >> The command line > >> > >> $ git worktree add ../a-new-worktree topic > >> > >> would just have failed because three was no 'topic' branch yet, no? > > > > Indeed, with this there would not be any backwards compatility > > worries. > > > > Ideally I'd still like to make > > > > $ git worktree add ../topic > > > > work as described above, to avoid having to type 'topic' twice (the > > directory name matches the branch name for the vast majority of my > > worktrees) but that should then come behind a flag/config option? > > Following your reasoning above it should probably be called something > > other than --guess. > > > > Maybe --guess-remote and worktree.guessRemote would do? I'm quite bad > > at naming though, so other suggestions are very welcome. > > For my own edification... > > git worktree add ../dir branch > > * Checks out branch into ../dir if branch exists. > > * Errors out if branch does not exist. However, if we consider the > history of the implementation of worktrees[*1*], then this really > ought to try the "origin/branch -> branch" DWIM before erroring-out. > Implementing this DWIM could be considered a regression fix according > to [*1*] and, as Junio points out, should not pose backward > compatibility worries.
Agreed, I think it is not very controversial that this would be an improvement.
Show 19 quoted lines
> git worktree add ../topic > > * Correctly errors out, refusing to create a new branch named "topic", > if "topic" is already a branch. > > * Creates a new branch named "topic" if no such local branch exists. > > The desired new DWIMing would change the second bullet point to: > > * If no local branch named "topic" exists, DWIM it from "origin/topic" > if possible, else create a new local branch named "topic". > > But that's a behavior change since, with the existing implementation, > a newly created local "topic" has no relation to, and does not track, > any origin/topic branch. The proposed --guess option is to avoid users > being hit by this backward incompatibility, however, one could also > view the proposed DWIMing as some sort of bug fix since, at least > some, users would expect the DWIMing since it already takes place > elsewhere.
I'm not sure we can call it a bug fix anymore, since as Junio pointed out the current behaviour of creating a new branch at HEAD is documented in the man page.
However git-worktree is also still marked as experimental in the man page, so we could allow ourselves to be a little bit more lax when it comes to backwards compatibility, especially because it is easy to take corrective action after the new DWIMing happened.
Show 17 quoted lines
> So, at least two options exist: > > * Just make the new DWIMing the default behavior, accepting that it > might bite a few people. Fallout can be mitigated somewhat by > prominently announcing that the DWIMing took place, in which case the > user can take corrective action (say, by choosing a different worktree > name); nothing is lost and no damage done since this is happening only > at worktree creation time. > > * Add a new option to enable DWIMing; perhaps name it -t/--track, > which is familiar terminology and still gives you a relatively short > and sweet "git worktree add -t ../topic". > > Given the mentioned mitigation factor and that some/many users likely > would expect it to DWIM "origin/topic -> topic" anyhow, I'd lean in > favor of the first option (but perhaps I'm too daring with other > people's workflows).
Yeah, I'm leaning towards the first option as well, but I'm clearly biased as that's how I'd like it to behave, and others might want the other behaviour. Unfortunately I don't know many worktree users, so I can't tell what the general consensus on this would be.
I guess the second option would be the safer one, and we can still switch that to be the default at some point if we wish to do so later.
tl;dr I have no idea which of the options would be better :)
Show 16 quoted lines
> FOOTNOTES
>
> [*1*]: When Duy first implemented worktree support, he incorporated it
> directly into the git-checkout command ("git checkout --to worktree
> ..."), which means that he got all the git-checkout features for free,
> including the "origin/branch -> branch" DWIM. When worktree support
> was later moved to git-worktree, it lost most of the features
> inherited implicitly from git-checkout, such as -b, -B, --detach, so
> those were added back to git-worktree explicitly. However, at that
> early stage, git-worktree was still piggy-backing atop git-checkout,
> thus likely was still getting the "origin/branch -> branch" DWIM for
> free. A final iteration converted git-worktree away from heavyweight
> git-checkout to lightweight git-reset, at which point he DWIMing was
> lost. If you take this history into account, then loss of
> "origin/branch -> branch" DWIMing is a regression, so restoring it
> could be considered a bug fix.