Re: [PATCH 1/2] branch: description for orphan branch errors

From: Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 7, 2023, 00:35 UTC
Message-ID: <9a050344-27ea-4f26-e66a-2795596eb11d@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8rifp63p.fsf@gitster.g>

On 7/1/23 0:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Thinking of this as a whole, perhaps after this series we can add:
> 
> Why "after"?  If we already know that the existing patches are
> making things worse and need to fix the regression with a future
> patch to make it usable again, why introduce a regression in the
> first place?
>

I'm not sure if it is so worse, and if the optimization is a fix.

We're actually paying for worktrees twice in: reject_rebase_or_bisedt_branch() and replace_each_worktree_head_symref().

Making the change this way makes more obvious IMHO what we are moving and why.

Start moving the ref_exists() in 1/2, easily leads to 2/1 and this patch squashed with 1/2, for little gain (IMHO) and worse history.

This is why I think it's a good sequence. But I understand your point and I'm not opposed to doing it as you suggest if you think the current way doesn't pay off.