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 4EC711991C9 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:44:39 +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=1732923882; cv=none; b=p09Dy+io906SkiKQyUo70C76s5grrSTqqX8cXNtwKG6wHGauPGQkwEgLt87D8XrSYHiCg+xvd5mtn5w5e4Llu9JepzrZi12B5RT1KLAY8D1L1KG+AkImaw0HhaIzH9uu0eyVTgQferxsxcu6v9xInXC/0/eaZF7Fn/GDv+mb/fc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732923882; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gC+8FRDUNPY4/3gZxN14xDwF8swqa9pP7tKt1kwO7ys=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=M9ShDxcvFylMlBnc/z5nqbh2s23pYqcLJNzMp4jY0TeR5gAxXjcop075hYdwN8W2tSxQfcKc34jw3054Ny7ueOplELlbTiH8lU9Qqz7ndxUQEedkRlhgOfeUkfVbmApIfCGIY0KJ2/Hawork6DxmSg4xZWd1SYx/mt+dLKEkCHY= 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 4ATNiPKC2433773 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Nov 2024 23:44:26 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$@nexbridge.com> <00c501db42b4$ea97e050$bfc7a0f0$@nexbridge.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] Ensure unique worktree ids across repositories Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:44:20 -0500 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <00c801db42b8$a03539a0$e09face0$@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+UqnR1y6U5HdhCIquXTuJIeQHx0ACsAfNKDdECDlEqNwJOncQospDeV8A= Content-Language: en-ca On November 29, 2024 6:29 PM, Caleb White wrote: >On Fri Nov 29, 2024 at 5:17 PM CST, rsbecker wrote: >> 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. > >How exactly are your scripts depending on the worktree id? There are = very few >reasons a script might need to know the worktree id, and I suspect that = there's >some confusion here. The worktree name is still used with the `git = worktree` >commands, so there no change on that front. The graphic describing this showed the id in addition to the worktree = name. During cleanup detection, the directory of the worktree is significant. = If that Observation is wrong, I retract all this.