Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] worktree: link worktrees with relative paths

From: Caleb White <cdwhite3@pm.me>
Date: Oct 10, 2024, 17:30 UTC
Message-ID: <gSEdRZ0rf9yJ68dp1Jgq7CYrXPGMgUxgBji4qs_emJy25eHOG7ULCtH8f2bawTRFSMGoxC_QsB7EN0OJnbQ_Olf66hNk8fEJoVMkkIlyA14=@pm.me>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqfrp4onjd.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wednesday, October 9th, 2024 at 18:37, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> Caleb White cdwhite3@pm.me writes:
>

Show 5 quoted lines

> > > existing repository", and another test that creates with the option
> > > to use relative and uses the worktree/repository without the option
> > > would simulate "how well existing versions of Git works when seeing
> > > a worktree made with the newer git with the relative option".
> >

Show 5 quoted lines

> > I can already tell you that this particular case is not going to work
> > because existing versions of git expect the path to be absolute. Most
> > of the changes in this patch revolve around properly reading/handling
> > the relative paths, not writing the relative paths.
>

Show 5 quoted lines

> If we are talking about making irreversible change to an existing
> repository, we may need to grab one extensions bit (cf.
> Documentation/technical/repository-version.txt and then refer also
> to Documentation/config/extensions.txt [*]) and flip it when we
> wrote a relative link to refer to an worktree and repository.

Thanks, I'll take a look at the references.

> [Footnote]
>

> * The repository-version document claims that any extensions
> invented must be registered there, but config/extensions.txt that
> came later ignored it and seems to have acquired a few more than
> the "master list". We should clean up the mess.

Would you like the contents of config/extensions.txt moved into the repository-version document and then deleted?