Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2014, #01; Tue, 2)

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> * nd/multiple-work-trees (2014-07-29) 39 commits
>>>>
>>>>  Reroll posted, but haven't picked up yet.  How would this interact
>>>>  with rr/transaction series which is pretty much all about the refs?
>>>
>>> Haven't checked out that topic yet. But ref changes in
>>> multiple-work-trees are to make sure ref path construction goess
>>> through git_path(), and some cleaning up after strbuf_git_path() is
>>> introduced. So basically textual conflicts only.
>>
>> Up to the point that is queued on 'pu', the other topic(s) still
>> keep the assumption that all refs are files in $GIT_DIR/refs/, and I
>> think I managed the textual conflicts correctly in 'pu' before.
>
> One point that caused unnecessary conflict resolution was that the
> transaction series lacked "let's use strbuf to hold paths".  This
> had two immediate side effects, i.e. "instead of returning upon
> errors, jump to the end with 'goto done/fail' for necessary
> clean-up" and "get rid of git_snpath and use strbuf_git_path", both
> of which are good general clean-ups, even if they weren't related to
> the multiple worktrees feature, that conflicted with the transaction
> series when getting merged.
>
> You can see the interactions by checking
>
>     $ git show 'pu^{/^Merge branch .nd/multi}' refs.c
>
> Perhaps these three changes, without the addition of the multiple
> worktree feature, should come first as a general clean-up on top of
> which both topics can be built?