Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] worktree: add upgrade_to_worktree_config()

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 12/28/2021 11:58 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:03 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/21/2021 7:45 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>>> It would be a good idea to drop the final sentence since there is no
>>> such thing as a bare worktree (either conceptually or practically),
>>> and end the first sentence at "case": i.e. "... stops that special
>>> case."
>>
>> Bare worktrees don't exist, that is correct. But if one existed it
>> would be a directory where you could operate as if it is a bare repo,
>> but it has its own HEAD different from the base repo's HEAD. Not sure
>> why one would want it.
> 
> I'm not following. I also still don't know what "base repo" is or
> where two HEADs would arise.
> 
>>>> +       char *base_config_file = xstrfmt("%s/config", r->commondir);
>>>> +       char *base_worktree_file = xstrfmt("%s/config.worktree", r->commondir);
>>>
>>> Per path.c:strbuf_worktree_gitdir(), this use of `r->commondir` is
>>> correct. Good.
>>>
>>> Can we use more meaningful variable names? It's not at all clear what
>>> "base" means in this context (I don't think it has any analog in Git
>>> terminology). Perhaps name these `shared_config` and `repo_config`,
>>> respectively.
>>
>> 'repo_config' is too generic, because I want the worktree config for
>> the "original" repo. I chose to call that the "base" repo and its
>> worktree config. Shared_config is a good name, though.
> 
> There seems to be some terminology confusion or conflict at play here.
> We're dealing with only a single repository and zero or more
> worktrees, so I'm still having trouble understanding your references
> to "original repo" and "base repo", which seem to indicate multiple
> repositories.

Your use of "main worktree" is what I am meaning. I will adopt your
terminology.

Thanks,
-Stolee