Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2016, #05; Thu, 16)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 27, 2016, 16:29 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqinwubnnp.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <576B9081.3020405@alum.mit.edu>

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> I'd like to request that the change for the p4 temprefs be made in two
> steps:
>
> 1. Write references to `refs/git-p4-tmp` or whatever, without
>    worrying about making them per-worktree.
>
> 2. Carve out a per-worktree namespace, bikeshed about its name and
>    semantics, make sure it works correctly, then finally move the
>    p4 temporary references and eventually the bisect references there.

Hasn't 2. already happened long time ago? I thought that the direction was that bisect will have to be grandfathered to stay there, and new things would hang beneath a single per-worktree hierarchy.

I would have expected that your 1. would be a request to use refs/worktrees/git-p4-tmp.

... goes and looks ...

Ahh, I did misremember the discussions.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/276628 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/276960/focus=276963

It appears that in the latter, a more generic refs/worktrees/ was somehow postponed, and only bisect was made per-worktree to fix the immediate breakage.

Show 8 quoted lines

> The reason is that step 1 is low-risk, could be made quickly, and is
> enough to unblock mh/split-under-lock and the other patch series that
> depend on it. Step 2, on the other hand, could take quite a while, and
> its implementation might benefit from changes to reference handling that
> are in the pipeline (e.g., perhaps the horrible hack can be dispensed
> with). Meanwhile, as far as I understand these references are transient,
> so there are no backwards-compatibility considerations that make
> renaming them twice more cumbersome than renaming them once.