Re: [PATCH 2/2] worktree: add `relativeWorktrees` extension

[Caleb White <cdwhite3@pm.me>]

On Mon Oct 28, 2024 at 12:08 PM CDT, Taylor Blau wrote:
> OK, I think the mistake here is mine. I did not see
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqfrp4onjd.fsf@gitster.g/
>
> when triaging the list after Junio went offline for vacation. Had I not
> lost that email, I would not have merged the earlier round without more
> discussion.
>
> That being said, it is still greatly appreciated when contributors can
> follow the WC reports when they have patches that are moving through the
> various integration branches. That way you can see my "Will merge to
> 'next'" comment and say "please hold, I am working on a new round that
> is substantially different / uncovers some backwards incompatibility /
> etc." and we can wait appropriately.
>
> Now we are in the rather unfortunate situation of having merged
> something to 'master' that (with the additional information that I
> missed earlier) it is not clear that I would have merged in its existing
> form at the time.
>
> But that's OK, and we can figure out a path forward here. I am just
> trying to say that this highlights the importance of following the WC
> reports regularly to catch cases where the maintainer missed some
> important piece of information.

My apologies, this was my first patch submission to Git and I was not
exactly the process by which topics progressed from `seen` to `next` to
`master`. I will be sure to follow the reports more closely in the future.

>> Adding the extension was the direction suggested by Junio in the
>> previous round. Git did not account for the possibility of the linking
>> files containing relative paths, so there's really no way to make this
>> change without breaking compatibility with older versions of Git. Git
>> had to be taught how to handle files that could contain either absolute
>> or relative paths.
>
> Yep, that makes sense. My preference here would be to make the new
> behavior opt *in*, rather than opt-out, so that:
>
>   - Users who do not experience problems with writing worktrees that
>     have absolute paths can continue to do so without any changes.
>
>   - Users who use worktrees *and* do not write relative paths can
>     upgrade between successive versions without requiring a new
>     repository extension that would break older Git versions.
>
>   - That we only add that extension to the repository's configuration if
>     and when the user has opted into the new behavior.
>
> Reading this new series, I *think* that is the behavior that you settled
> on, which seems quite reasonable to me. Can you confirm that I'm reading
> this all correctly? Assuming so, I think that we are in a reasonable
> position[^1] to review this series instead of having to back out the new
> behavior.

Yes this is correct. The new behavior is opt-in and the extension is
only added to the repository configuration if the user creates
a worktree with relative paths.

> Thanks for bearing with me here, I am quite embarrassed to have missed
> Junio's mail that I mentioned earlier, but I appreciate your patience
> while we sort this out together.

No worries! I appreciate your feedback and I'm glad we're able to
sort this out.

Best,
Caleb