From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200951F404 for ; Sat, 3 Mar 2018 14:22:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751989AbeCCOWL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2018 09:22:11 -0500 Received: from elephants.elehost.com ([216.66.27.132]:23293 "EHLO elephants.elehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751885AbeCCOWL (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2018 09:22:11 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at elehost.com Received: from pangea (CPE00fc8d49d843-CM00fc8d49d840.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.229.179.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by elephants.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w23EM4Cr061835 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 3 Mar 2018 09:22:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rsbecker@nexbridge.com) From: "Randall S. Becker" To: "=?UTF-8?Q?'Nguy=E1=BB=85n_Th=C3=A1i_Ng=E1=BB=8Dc_Duy'?=" , Cc: "'Eric Sunshine'" References: <20180303033918.15751-1-pclouds@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20180303033918.15751-1-pclouds@gmail.com> Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/3] git worktree prune improvements Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 09:21:56 -0500 Message-ID: <002601d3b2fa$ff6df240$fe49d6c0$@nexbridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-ca Thread-Index: AQFFfQpmgu8o94Yllw79o2IlTbccBqTa+NBA Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On March 2, 2018 10:39 PM, Nguy?n Thái Ng?c Duy wrote: > This is something we could do to improve the situation when a user manually > moves a worktree and not follow the update process (we have had the first > reported case [1]). Plus a bit cleanup in gc. > > I think this is something we should do until we somehow make the user > aware that the worktree is broken as soon as they move a worktree > manually. But there's some more work to get there. > > [1] http://public-inbox.org/git/%3Caa98f187-4b1a-176d-2a1b- > 826c995776cd@aegee.org%3E I wonder whether the OT thread discussion about branch annotation may have some value here. For some repositories I manage, I have received questions about whether there was some way to know that a branch in the clone was associated with a worktree "at any point in the past", which, once the worktree has been pruned, is not derivable in a formal computational sense - there may be specific conditions where it is. Perhaps, if that line of development moves forward, that we should considering annotating the worktree-created branch to help with our pruning process and to identify where the branch originated. Just a thought. Cheers, Randall -- Brief whoami: NonStop developer since approximately NonStop(211288444200000000) UNIX developer since approximately 421664400 -- In my real life, I talk too much.