Re: "git branch -f" corrupt other worktree

> > Part of this is "doctor, it hurts when I stab my eye" :) but I wonder in
> > general whether users are more likely to expect different worktrees to
> > have different views of the refstore, since they way they're created is
> > "I want just this branch over there".
> >
> > I.e. whether they want something closer to another directory with
> > "alternates" pointing to the "main" repo, and whether that should be
> > promoted to UI that's easier to set up than it is now.
> >
> > Or maybe something in-between, where they'd expect remote tracking refs
> > to update for everything, but a worktree's "master" branch not to be
> > touchable by a worktree on "topic".
>
> I think it's a minefield to go with different views on refs. They can
> already have per-worktree refs now. Granted it's long to type (e.g.
> worktrees/foo/something) but it does help remind it's per-worktree.

> And we can probably improve the ref resolution rules to resolve
> "foo/something" (or "something" even) to worktrees/foo/something for
> example. But going totally custom, I think it's hard to even manage as
> a user.
>
> With that said, I think we can technically support per-worktree refs
> even outside worktrees/, or the whole refeference space per-worktree,
> now. The difficulty will be coming up with some sane UI that can
> handle that and not leave too many traps behind. I can't see that UI.
> --
> Duy