Re: Minor missing features in worktree compare to new-workdir

From: Yichao Yu <yyc1992@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2017, 00:40 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMvDr+TsdO5V694R5gpaWwyjkSHXW=QYG8n74ULVYZ5pbuY-zA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1497444089.13409.108.camel@mad-scientist.net>

Show 8 quoted lines

>> 2. worktree doesn't seem to support multiple worktree on the same
>> branch.
>
> I think this is a very good thing about worktrees as opposed to
> workdirs.
>
> In a situation where I may want multiple worktrees pointing to the same
> commit I just check out the SHA rather than the branch: you can have as

Hmm, this could be workable. Though in that case it'll be nice to have a easier way to checkout the SHA corresponding to a branch.

Show 5 quoted lines

> many branches set to the same SHA (detached HEAD) as you like, and
> there's no concern about dirty workspaces.  This latter can actually be
> a really big problem (suppose the workdir contained some modified files
> then you update another workdir with the same branch... it's not easy to
> figure out what happened here!)

Unless it can cause internal corruption I'd still prefer to allow this with warning/option. I have indeed cause dirty state myself though 95% of the time it's because I forgot to remove the checkout that I'm done using and the rest 5% being temperary state that I intentionally cause (e.g. update in one checkout before hard resetting the second one).