Re: Re* [PATCH v2 1/2] refs: refs/worktree/* become per-worktree

[David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>]

On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 14:10 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> writes:
> 
> > We need a place to stick refs for bisects in progress that is not
> > shared between worktrees.  So we use the refs/worktree/ hierarchy.
> 
> This is by itself OK, but to help existing Porcelains, most notably
> "gitk", I think refs/bisect/ hierarchy should be treated the same
> way.  Moving them out of refs/bisect/ to refs/worktree/bisect/ would
> not be a good idea.

What does gitk do that's relevant here?

> Because refs/worktree/ hierarchy is not needed right now, I think we
> can even live with just special casing refs/bisect/ the way this
> patch does, without adding refs/worktree/ support at this point.

There are a few reasons for refs/worktree hierarchy:

1. To make it easy to see the behavior of a ref at a glance.
2. To avoid too many different special-cases.

It's true that special-casing refs/bisect would make for fewer code
changes for now, but I am worried that next week we'll discover a new
situation where we'll want per-worktree refs and then we'll have to add
more special-cases.

> > Note that git for-each-ref may have inconsistent behavior (I think; I
> > haven't confirmed this), sometimes showing refs/worktree/* and sometimes
> > not.  In the long run, we should fix this, but right now, I don't know
> > that it matters, since the only refs affected are these bisect refs.
> 
> We should fix that before this hits 'master', preferrably before
> this hits 'next', especially if we add support for the more generic
> refs/worktree/.  If it is only for refs/bisect/, we might be OK, but
> I didn't think things through.

I will do this.  Should for-each-ref include or exclude these refs?  One
simple way to do "include" is to always create the refs/worktree
directory (when creating refs/).  

I'll also fix the rest of the things you suggested.