Re: en/keep-cwd (Was: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2021, #01; Fri, 3))

> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:57 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > * en/keep-cwd (2021-12-01) 11 commits
> >  - t2501: simplify the tests since we can now assume desired behavior
> >  - dir: new flag to remove_dir_recurse() to spare the original_cwd
> >  - dir: avoid incidentally removing the original_cwd in remove_path()
> >  - stash: do not attempt to remove startup_info->original_cwd
> >  - rebase: do not attempt to remove startup_info->original_cwd
> >  - clean: do not attempt to remove startup_info->original_cwd
> >  - symlinks: do not include startup_info->original_cwd in dir removal
> >  - unpack-trees: add special cwd handling
> >  - unpack-trees: refuse to remove startup_info->original_cwd
> >  - setup: introduce startup_info->original_cwd
> >  - t2501: add various tests for removing the current working directory
> >
> >  Many git commands that deal with working tree files try to remove a
> >  directory that becomes empty (i.e. "git switch" from a branch that
> >  has the directory to another branch that does not would attempt
> >  remove all files in the directory and the directory itself).  This
> >  drops users into an unfamiliar situation if the command was run in
> >  a subdirectory that becomes subject to removal due to the command.
> >  The commands have been taught to keep an empty directory if it is
> >  the directory they were started in to avoid surprising users.
>
> Very nicely written summary.
>
> >
> >  Needs review.
> >  There are some comments on earlier rounds; the latest one needs a
> >  serious review or at least Acks from past commentors.
> >  source: <pull.1140.v5.git.git.1638340854.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
>
> If it helps, there are two parts to the review:
> - Do we want this feature?