Re: [PATCH v3] worktree add: improve message for ambiguous remote branch name

>
> "Yoichi NAKAYAMA via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > From: Yoichi NAKAYAMA <yoichi.nakayama@gmail.com>
> >
> > When the user runs 'git worktree add x y' command that does not
> > exactly say which remote they want to work with, and there is no local
> > branch named y, we try to guess which remote by passing y then create
> > a new branch named y which tracks the remote branch.
>
> I used x and y as placeholders.  The readers would be helped if you
> used a more plausible sounding names, e.g., naming directory as
> something like foo-dir (the point being 'dir' somewhere in its name)
> and naming a branch as something like bar-topic.  If this were 'git
> worktree add', it is probably more than likely that the destination
> directory would begin with ../ to have the new worktree next to the
> primary repository we are running in, no?
>
> > If there are multiple remotes that have branch named y, we silently
> > gave up, leaving the variable branch intact.  This later causes
> > creating local branch and worktree not happen, and we end up with
> > passing an non-existing branch to lookup_commit_reference_by_name(),
> > triggering "invalid reference" error and die.
>
> "This later causes" part still seems a bit too sketchy to help a
> totally new reader, even though I've stared at this code long enough
> so it would be sufficient for me personally.  But these logs are not
> about helping me, but helping other developers, so...
>
> > +#define WORKTREE_ADD_AMBIGUOUS_REMOTE_BRANCH_NAME_HINT_TEXT \
> > +     _("Matched multiple remote tracking branches, you can list them by:\n" \
> > +     "\n" \
> > +     "    git branch -r --list \"*/%s\"\n" \
> > +     "\n" \
> > +     "If you meant to create a worktree from a remote tracking branch on,\n" \
> > +     "e.g. 'origin', you can do so by:\n" \
> > +     "\n" \
> > +     "    git worktree add -b %s %s origin/%s\n" \
> > +     "\n" \
> > +     "If you'd like to always prefer some remote, e.g. 'origin',\n" \
> > +     "consider setting checkout.defaultRemote=origin in your config.")
>
> Instead of throwing the problem back to the user with four extra
> lines of message telling them how to run 'git branch', I would have
> expected this patch to teach unique_tracking_name() to optionally
> return the list of remotes with that branch name, and to use that
> result in this message.  However, if the goal is simply to provide
> something better than 'invalid reference', we do not even need to
> go that far.  Just stating that branch 'y' appears on multiple
> remotes and asking them to clarify which one they mean might be a
> sufficient improvement.

> Could the original request be aiming to create a new worktree with
> the HEAD detached at the commit pointed at by the remote-tracking
> branch, instead of creating a local branch forked from it?  I am
> just wondering if "-b %s" is too specific to one possible
> interpretation that may contradict to what the user actually wanted
> to do.