Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] wt-status: avoid passing NULL worktree

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

> On 19/02/2026 20:37, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> 
>>> In other words, the function is_current_worktree(wt) may not take a
>>> repository and always compute things relative to the_repository, but
>>> once we wean ourselves off of the_repository, we would/should have
>>> repo_is_current_worktree(repo, wt), making is_current_worktree(wt) a
>>> thin wrapper for repo_is_current_worktree(the_repository, wt)?
>> 
>> Eh, in light of 2/2 of this series, since wt knows which repository
>> it belongs to, what I wrote above does not make much sense.
>> Allowing callers to give repo that is different from wt->repo to
>> that function is a potential foot-gun.  In other words, isn't
>> is_current_worktree(wt) using the_worktree and not wt->repo a bug
>> already, I have to wonder?
>
> I wonder that too. You, Karthik and me all initially assumed that the 
> current worktree would be defined by wt->repo->worktree matching 
> wt->path (the code actually compares the git_dir of the worktree and the 
> repository to accommodate bare repositories but the same principle 
> applies). The use of "the_repository" in is_current_wortree() comes from 
> replacing get_git_dir() with repo_get_git_dir() in 246deeac951 
> (environment: make `get_git_dir()` accept a repository, 2024-09-12). In
> get_worktree_git_dir() it comes from replacing git_common_path() with 
> repo_common_path() in 07242c2a5af (path: drop `git_common_path()` in 
> favor of `repo_common_path()`, 2025-02-07). I suspect the replacements 
> were mechanical and not much thought went into considering whether, in a 
> world where there can be more than one repository per process, they 
> should use the local repository instance instead of "the_repository".
>
> The current situation seems counter intuitive and I don't see what the 
> benefit is in defining the current worktree to be per-process rather 
> than per-struct-repository instance.
>
> This series isn't in next yet - shall I re-roll with an extra 
> preparatory patch changing is_current_worktree() and 
> git_worktree_git_dir() to use wt->repo, or are you happy to have that as 
> a separate follow up on top of these patches?

Thanks for investigating how we got here.  I do not have strong
preference in the order, as long as we eventually get there.