From: Shreyansh Paliwal <shreyanshpaliwalcmsmn@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:09:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] worktree: stop passing NULL as primary worktree
Message-ID: <20260217101016.13641-1-shreyanshpaliwalcmsmn@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <66b0f03a-36ab-4305-814e-6d964f5d33c4@gmail.com>

> On 15/02/2026 08:56, Shreyansh Paliwal wrote:
> >> I've cc'd Eric for a second opinion
> >>
> >> On 13/02/2026 22:29, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>> Shreyansh Paliwal <shreyanshpaliwalcmsmn@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> diff --git a/path.c b/path.c
> >>>> index d726537622..4ac86e1e58 100644
> >>>> --- a/path.c
> >>>> +++ b/path.c
> >>>> @@ -408,9 +408,7 @@ static void strbuf_worktree_gitdir(struct strbuf *buf,
> >>>>    				   const struct repository *repo,
> >>>>    				   const struct worktree *wt)
> >>>>    {
> >>>> -	if (!wt)
> >>>> -		strbuf_addstr(buf, repo->gitdir);
> >>>> -	else if (!wt->id)
> >>>> +	if (is_main_worktree(wt))
> >>>>    		strbuf_addstr(buf, repo->commondir);
> >>>>    	else
> >>>>    		repo_common_path_append(repo, buf, "worktrees/%s", wt->id);
> >>>
> >>> This is curious.
> >>>
> >>> We used to treat "wt==NULL" and "wt->id==NULL" differently.  Now we
> >>> use repo->commondir for both.  For the primary worktree, it ought to
> >>> be the same as repo->gitdir, so it should not matter, but makes me
> >>> wonder what the reason behind this difference in the original.
> >>>
> >>> We have been assuming that wt==NULL and wt->id==NULL both meant the
> >>> same thing: "we are talking about the primary worktree".  But the
> >>> code around here before this patch seems to behave differently.  Is
> >>> our assumption incorrect and are we making a mistake by conflating
> >>> these two conditions into one?
> >>
> >> My understanding is that wt==NULL means "use the current worktree" and
> >> wt->id==NULL means "this is the main worktree". That would explain why
> >> we use repo->gitdir above when wt==NULL and repo->commondir when
> >> wt->id==NULL, as repo->gitdir is the gitdir of the current worktree and
> >> repo->commondir will be the gitdir of the main worktree. If we look at
> >> the code in wt-status.c that's passing a NULL worktree it wants to know
> >> about the status of the current worktree, not the main worktree.
> >>
> >> I think that we should add a new function
> >>
> >> struct worktree *get_current_worktree(struct repository*);
> >>
> >> to worktree.c that constructs a struct worktree using repo->gitdir etc.
> >> The worktree id is the last path component of repo->gitdir when the
> >> repo->gitdir and repo->commondir differ, otherwise it is NULL. Then we
> >> can use that function to get the current worktree rather than passing
> >> NULL when we call wt_status_check_{rebase,bisect} from
> >> wt_status_get_state(). We should also think about whether we should
> >> change wt_status_get_state() to take a "struct worktree*" rather than a
> >> "struct repository*" instead (I've not looked at the callers to see if
> >> that's sensible).
> >>
> >> With that, we can gradually clean up uses of wt==NULL in the rest of the
> >> codebase overtime and eventually remove support for it from worktree.c
> >> rather than having a big flag-day patch. I don't think we need to change
> >> uses of wt-id==NULL.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for clarifying. This helps solve the doubt regarding the
> > different usage of !wt and !wt->id in strbuf_worktree_gitdir(). I realize
> > we have been under the wrong assumption about what wt == NULL represents.
> >
> > But I still have a few points where I’m a bit confused,
> >
> > If wt == NULL is meant to represent the current worktree, then what role
> > wt->is_current plays in the present implementation, and if they both
> > represent the same thing then wt->is_current wouldn't make sense if wt is
> > already NULL in the case of a current worktree.
>
> wt == NULL is a shorthand that callers can use if they don't have a
> struct worktree to pass, it does not replace wt->is_current when listing
> all worktrees with get_worktrees() which returns a NULL terminated list.

Ah, yes got it.

> > Beyond representation, I’m not quite understanding on how call sites are
> > logically differentiating on whether the intent is to 'operate on the
> > worktree we are in' or 'operate on the primary one'.
>
> We're nearly always interested in the current one. The primary worktree
> is special in that it cannot be moved or deleted with "git worktree" but
> git commands generally operate on the current worktree and occasionally
> check the state of other worktrees (for example to avoid checking out
> the same branch in two different worktrees).

Hmm. Understood.

> > And I think if we included both in struct repository (r->main_wt, r->current_wt)
> > so accessing either of them would be a whole lot easier and also would
> > prevent confusion in the future.
>
> It might be worth adding the current worktree (or probably the worktree
> that the struct repository refers to) to struct repository in the future
> but I think that is outside the scope of cleaning up wt-status.c

Right.

Thanks for clearing it out :)

Best,
Shreyansh