Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] worktree add: add --orphan flag
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jan 19, 2023, 16:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <df2c0ae0-0654-a3e1-cc02-be2d970ea287@dunelm.org.uk>
- In-Reply-To
- <20230118224020.vrytmeyt3vbanoh2@phi>
On 18/01/2023 22:40, Jacob Abel wrote:
Show 36 quoted lines
> On 23/01/16 10:47AM, Phillip Wood wrote: >> Hi Jacob >> >> On 14/01/2023 22:47, Jacob Abel wrote: >>> On 23/01/13 10:20AM, Phillip Wood wrote: >>>> Hi Jacob >>>> >>> [...] >>> >>> I'll reply to this message with the one-off patch to get feedback. Since this is >>> essentially a discrete change on top of v8, I can either keep it as a separate >>> patch or reroll depending on how much needs to be changed (and what would be >>> easier for everyone). >>> >>>> git worktree add --orphan -b topic main >>>> git worktree add --orphan -B topic main >>> >>> I am hesitant to add these as they break away from the syntax used in >>> `git switch` and `git checkout`. >> >> When I wrote my original email I wrongly though that --orphan did not >> take an argument for "git checkout". While I think it is a mistake for >> checkout and switch to have --orphan take an argument they do at least >> always need a branch name with that option. "git worktree" add already >> has the branch name in the form of the worktree directory in the common >> case. > > Understood. > > I'm not entirely opposed to making this change to OPT_BOOL but I have to wonder > how often `--orphan` will actually be used by a given user and whether the > slightly shorter invocation will be used regularly. > > With the base `git worktree add $path`, the shorthand/DWYM makes sense as it's > used regularly but I don't see users working with `--orphan` outside of trying > to create the first branch in a repository.
Your example use in the commit message shows the user using the same name for the branch and worktree. If that really is the likely use than I think we should make --orphan OPT_BOOL. If it is not the likely use perhaps you could update the commit message to show how you think it will be used.
Show 9 quoted lines
> And I'd like that operation of creating the first branch in a repo to eventually > "just work" with the base command, i.e. `git worktree add main/`. The reason I > hadn't yet added that is because I've yet to figure out how to get it to work > without accidentally introducing potentially confusing situations and I didn't > want to hold up introducing the core functionality itself. > > Once that main use-case "just works", I don't see users utilising `--orphan` > except in very rare circumstances. Doubly so since the average user likely > shouldn't be using `--orphan` in most cases.
This brings us back to the question that we discussed earlier of whether we need --orphan at all. If we can get the main use-case working without it we'd perhaps be better doing that rather than adding an option no one ends up using.
Best Wishes
Phillip
Show 36 quoted lines
> Hence the question of whether this change would be worth it vs the existing > `--orphan $branchname $path` which is (for better or worse) consistent with `-b` > and `-B`. > >> >>> Also apologies for the tangent but while researching this path, I noticed that >>> --orphan behaves unexpectedly on both `git switch` and `git checkout` when mixed >>> with `-c` and `-b` respectively. >>> >>> % git switch --orphan -c foobar >>> fatal: invalid reference: foobar >>> >>> % git switch -c --orphan foobar >>> fatal: invalid reference: foobar >>> % git checkout -b --orphan foobar >>> fatal: 'foobar' is not a commit and a branch '--orphan' cannot be created from it >>> >>> % git checkout --orphan -b foobar >>> fatal: 'foobar' is not a commit and a branch '-b' cannot be created from it >> >> The messages for checkout look better than the switch ones to me as they >> show the branch name which makes it clearer that we're treating what >> looks like an option as an argument. What in particular is unexpected >> here - --orphan and -b take an argument so they'll hoover up the next >> thing on the commandline whatever it is. >> >> Best Wishes >> >> Phillip >> >>> [...] > > Agreed. I wasn't sure if this would be something worth addressing in a patch but > at the very least I can work on putting together a small patch for `git switch` > since it doesn't seem to be hoovering the flags like `git checkout` does. >