Re: [PATCH 00/11] git worktree (re)move

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Nov 16, 2016, 18:39 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq8tsjqner.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy40jqoqm.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The following patch should fix it if that's the same thing you saw. I
>> could pile it on worktree-move series, or you can make it a separate
>> one-patch series. What's your preference?
>
> Giving a stable output to the users is probably a good preparatory
> fix to what is already in the released versions, so it would make
> the most sense to make it a separate patch to be applied to maint
> then build the remainder on top.
>
> I do not think "always show the primary first" is necessarily a good
> idea (I would have expected an output more like "git branch --list").

Yikes, "worktree list" is documented like so:

    List details of each worktree. The main worktree is listed
    first, followed by each of the linked worktrees.

If the primary workree is somehow missing, it still should be listed first as missing---otherwise the readers of --porcelain readers will have hard time telling what is going on.