From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Shreyansh Paliwal <shreyanshpaliwalcmsmn@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, karthik.188@gmail.com,
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] worktree: stop passing NULL as primary worktree
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:30:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ebc16a74-0555-4951-8ec6-ff7fce6b6fcc@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqcy28jmzs.fsf@gitster.g>
I've cc'd Eric for a second opinion
On 13/02/2026 22:29, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Shreyansh Paliwal <shreyanshpaliwalcmsmn@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/path.c b/path.c
>> index d726537622..4ac86e1e58 100644
>> --- a/path.c
>> +++ b/path.c
>> @@ -408,9 +408,7 @@ static void strbuf_worktree_gitdir(struct strbuf *buf,
>> const struct repository *repo,
>> const struct worktree *wt)
>> {
>> - if (!wt)
>> - strbuf_addstr(buf, repo->gitdir);
>> - else if (!wt->id)
>> + if (is_main_worktree(wt))
>> strbuf_addstr(buf, repo->commondir);
>> else
>> repo_common_path_append(repo, buf, "worktrees/%s", wt->id);
>
> This is curious.
>
> We used to treat "wt==NULL" and "wt->id==NULL" differently. Now we
> use repo->commondir for both. For the primary worktree, it ought to
> be the same as repo->gitdir, so it should not matter, but makes me
> wonder what the reason behind this difference in the original.
>
> We have been assuming that wt==NULL and wt->id==NULL both meant the
> same thing: "we are talking about the primary worktree". But the
> code around here before this patch seems to behave differently. Is
> our assumption incorrect and are we making a mistake by conflating
> these two conditions into one?
My understanding is that wt==NULL means "use the current worktree" and
wt->id==NULL means "this is the main worktree". That would explain why
we use repo->gitdir above when wt==NULL and repo->commondir when
wt->id==NULL, as repo->gitdir is the gitdir of the current worktree and
repo->commondir will be the gitdir of the main worktree. If we look at
the code in wt-status.c that's passing a NULL worktree it wants to know
about the status of the current worktree, not the main worktree.
I think that we should add a new function
struct worktree *get_current_worktree(struct repository*);
to worktree.c that constructs a struct worktree using repo->gitdir etc.
The worktree id is the last path component of repo->gitdir when the
repo->gitdir and repo->commondir differ, otherwise it is NULL. Then we
can use that function to get the current worktree rather than passing
NULL when we call wt_status_check_{rebase,bisect} from
wt_status_get_state(). We should also think about whether we should
change wt_status_get_state() to take a "struct worktree*" rather than a
"struct repository*" instead (I've not looked at the callers to see if
that's sensible).
With that, we can gradually clean up uses of wt==NULL in the rest of the
codebase overtime and eventually remove support for it from worktree.c
rather than having a big flag-day patch. I don't think we need to change
uses of wt-id==NULL.
Thanks
Phillip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-14 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-13 11:59 [RFC][PATCH 0/2] worktree: change representation and usage of primary worktree Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-13 11:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] worktree: represent the primary worktree with '/' instead of NULL Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-13 21:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-14 9:54 ` Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-13 11:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] worktree: stop passing NULL as primary worktree Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-13 22:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-14 9:59 ` Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-14 14:30 ` Phillip Wood [this message]
2026-02-14 15:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-15 8:56 ` Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-16 16:18 ` Phillip Wood
2026-02-17 5:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-17 10:09 ` Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-16 16:18 ` [PATCH 0/2] worktree_git_path(): remove repository argument Phillip Wood
2026-02-16 16:18 ` [PATCH 1/2] wt-status: avoid passing NULL worktree Phillip Wood
2026-02-17 9:23 ` Phillip Wood
2026-02-17 10:18 ` Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-17 15:20 ` Phillip Wood
2026-02-17 16:38 ` Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-17 18:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-17 17:46 ` Karthik Nayak
2026-02-18 14:19 ` Phillip Wood
2026-02-17 18:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-18 14:18 ` Phillip Wood
2026-02-16 16:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] path: remove repository argument from worktree_git_path() Phillip Wood
2026-02-17 17:48 ` Karthik Nayak
2026-02-17 10:12 ` [PATCH 0/2] worktree_git_path(): remove repository argument Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-17 15:22 ` Phillip Wood
2026-02-17 16:45 ` Shreyansh Paliwal
2026-02-19 14:26 ` [PATCH v2 " Phillip Wood
2026-02-19 14:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] wt-status: avoid passing NULL worktree Phillip Wood
2026-02-19 19:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-19 20:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-25 16:39 ` Phillip Wood
2026-02-25 17:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-26 16:09 ` Phillip Wood
2026-02-26 16:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-02-19 14:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] path: remove repository argument from worktree_git_path() Phillip Wood
2026-02-19 19:34 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ebc16a74-0555-4951-8ec6-ff7fce6b6fcc@gmail.com \
--to=phillip.wood123@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=karthik.188@gmail.com \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
--cc=shreyanshpaliwalcmsmn@gmail.com \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox