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

[Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 07:00:11PM +0000, Caleb White wrote:
> > 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.

It's not a problem, and I am glad that you have found an interest in
contributing to the Git project. We'll figure this one out :-).

> >> 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.

That is great. I'm glad that we're on the same page here, and that my
understanding matches reality.

> > 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.

Not a problem, and again, I very much appreciate your patience and
willingness to work on this.

Thanks,
Taylor