Re: [PATCH 2/3] t5509: initialized `pushee` as bare repository

From: Hariom verma <hariom18599@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 15, 2020, 21:52 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+CkUQ-PERGy8xJ-a=5kzbN+N9f4uVQ35Hc4Aob70gJGz++fKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpnehp5x4.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:33 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> If the series is fixing two bugs, perhaps 2/3 can first fix it for a
> primary worktree case by seeing what HEAD symref for the primary
> worktree points at is the target of a push without iterating over
> all the worktrees, have the test change in 2/3 (i.e. "fixing the
> 'unborn' case revealed a wrong expectation in an existing test"),
> and a couple of new tests to see what a push from sideways would do
> to an unborn branch that is checked out in the primary worktree when
> .denyCurrentBranch is and isn't in effect.
>
> Then 3/3 can use the same logic to see if one worktree is OK with
> the proposed ref update by the push used in 2/3 (which no longer
> uses refs_resolve_unsafe()') to check for all worktrees.  The new
> tests introduced in 2/3 would be extended to see what happens when
> the unborn branch getting updated by the push happens to be checked
> out in a secondary worktree.

As far as my understanding goes, what we want is:
1) fixing `.denyCurrentBranch` for unborn branches in primary worktree. (2/3)
2) writing test (expect it to fail if `unborn` & 'non-bare' case) (2/3)
3) making `.denyCurrentBranch` respect all worktrees. (3/3)
4) extending tests written in step 2 for secondary worktrees. (3/3)

Correct me if I'm wrong. As I'm not entirely familiar with working and structure of `.denyCurrentBranch`. So I might need more explicit explanation.

Thanks, Hariom