Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] Comment important codepaths regarding nuking untracked files/dirs

>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 2:37 AM Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the last few commits we focused on code in unpack-trees.c that
> > mistakenly removed untracked files or directories.  There may be more of
> > those, but in this commit we change our focus: callers of toplevel
> > commands that are expected to remove untracked files or directories.
> >
> > As noted previously, we have toplevel commands that are expected to
> > delete untracked files such as 'read-tree --reset', 'reset --hard', and
> > 'checkout --force'.  However, that does not mean that other highlevel
> > commands that happen to call these other commands thought about or
> > conveyed to users the possibility that untracked files could be removed.
> > Audit the code for such callsites, and add comments near existing
> > callsites to mention whether these are safe or not.
> > [...]
> > Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/builtin/worktree.c b/builtin/worktree.c
> > @@ -356,6 +356,11 @@ static int add_worktree(const char *path, const char *refname,
> > +               /*
> > +                * NOTE: reset --hard is okay here, because 'worktree add'
> > +                * refuses to work in an extant non-empty directory, so there
> > +                * is no risk of deleting untracked files.
> > +                */
> >                 strvec_pushl(&cp.args, "reset", "--hard", "--no-recurse-submodules", NULL);
>
> I understand that this comment helps you or some other person auditing
> similar cases in the future, however, as a standalone comment for a
> reader who isn't aware of the intention, it seems more confusing than
> illuminating. It also detracts from the important purpose of `--hard`
> here, which is that it is necessary in order to get `git reset` to
> actually "checkout" the files into the empty directory, so use of
> `--hard` is not an accident or carelessness.

> These days, we'd probably just use:
>
>     git restore --no-recurse-submodules .
>
> instead (including the final `.`) to achieve the same, and that
> wouldn't need any sort of cuationary comment like the one being added
> by this patch. So, perhaps that's a better way to go, or maybe it's
> outside the scope of this series...