From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61C1638FAD for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:18:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732922288; cv=none; b=R1n71t1Ncpc4DiuJ2XMaz3TyRCPBlQD+NBZD0cmtAoRU1AKp+weWnePySR3jPK+0lKdoj/8SLiQ2lH/Uo6IEm3pm3n+00puVEA4VD2TMYk2/s9RaJ7wfCeuNCtBc+O0pD1FLNEOBh180hsltFEy+v2v27ZAcyZOeeep9UrRlfPY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732922288; c=relaxed/simple; bh=P3lLZp4ghk/2dZI8sOzostsgOPzXqO1EbSS5il5UFiQ=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QbhfFelEh6douRx9hx0rp+a1THt8yEKhlBJ5qFTVDtYTjxcupl5ovugyJ+xRxhD8AvHoQy6JXctGhzBv6q2JeCYMh5ps76RKYgKsPAU5pmhYYKy/4TWHN804NmIWv/vflM4LMnX6WeJhEe4Fkd25ep9SKHFFj620azsR6xl+q0w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (pool-99-228-67-183.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.67.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 4ATNHq5O2430553 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:17:52 GMT Reply-To: From: To: "'Caleb White'" , Cc: "'shejialuo'" , "'Junio C Hamano'" References: <20241129-wt_unique_ids-v2-0-ff444e9e625a@pm.me> <00c401db42b1$99c4d5a0$cd4e80e0$@nexbridge.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] Ensure unique worktree ids across repositories Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:17:47 -0500 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <00c501db42b4$ea97e050$bfc7a0f0$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQHZQR+UqnR1y6U5HdhCIquXTuJIeQHx0ACsAfNKDdGys74hcA== Content-Language: en-ca On November 29, 2024 6:14 PM, Caleb White writes: >On Fri Nov 29, 2024 at 4:54 PM CST, rsbecker wrote: >> General comment on this series: Is there a mechanism of preserving >> existing functionality for those of us who have existing scripts that >> depend on the existing branch and worktree naming? > >Existing worktrees will continue to work as they do now. The only = change is the >worktree id for new worktrees. However, there's not an option to = preserve the >existing behavior for new worktrees (nor do I think there should be). I do not agree. Companies that have existing scripts should have some = way to preserve their investment. Just saying "No more worktrees for you" is = not really considerate. >As stated in the v1 threads, the worktree id is already not guaranteed = to be equal to >the worktree/branch name (there's several ways that this can occur), so = it's buggy >behavior for scripts to make this assumption. >Any script that needs the worktree id should be parsing it from the = `.git` file, `git rev- >parse --git-dir`, or (with the changes in this >series) `git worktree list`. I agree, but I think having some kind of notice beyond one release is = important, rather than pulling the rug out from under people. Just my suggestion that there should be a migration period of this = critical function. --Randall