Christian Couder [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
* dt/refs-bisection (2015-08-28) 5 commits
- bisect: make bisection refs per-worktree
- refs: make refs/worktree/* per-worktree
- SQUASH???
- path: optimize common dir checking
- refs: clean up common_list
Move the refs used during a "git bisect" session to per-worktree
hierarchy refs/worktree/* so that independent bisect sessions can
be done in different worktrees.
Will merge to 'next' after squashing the update in.
Sorry if I am missing something or repeating what myself or someone
else like Michael already said, but in the current doc there is:
Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and
you will have been left with the first bad kernel revision in
"refs/bisect/bad".
If we now just use "refs/worktree/bisect/bad" instead of
"refs/bisect/bad", it might break scripts that rely using
"refs/bisect/bad".
Christian, thanks for raising this one.
I do recall the thread and I might be the somebody like Michael you
remember, e.g. $gmane/275105---which did mention that "git bisect"
would not need changing if we kept refs/bisect/.
What was the reason why we chose to move to refs/worktree/ again? I
do not think there was an issue that we cannot keep refs/* in
general shared while having one (or more) subhierarchy of it per
worktree (otherwise we would not be using refs/worktree/*, but using
something outside refs/, like $GIT_DIR/worktree-refs/). Was there an
objection to refs/bisect being private from aesthetics point of view
(i.e. forcing everything per-worktree in refs/worktree/ would prevent
proliferation of refs/this and refs/that that need to be private
case by case), ignoring the practical issue of compatibility issues
around existing tools?
I think one example of script, "gitk --bisect", does want to show
the DAG limited by bisect refs, but it does so using plumbing
without having to say refs/bisect/bad itself. Perhaps the thinking
(or lack of enough of it) went that no other uses by scripts need to
peek directly into refs/bisect/ hierarchy?
On Mon, 2015-08-31 at 07:36 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Christian Couder [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
* dt/refs-bisection (2015-08-28) 5 commits
- bisect: make bisection refs per-worktree
- refs: make refs/worktree/* per-worktree
- SQUASH???
- path: optimize common dir checking
- refs: clean up common_list
Move the refs used during a "git bisect" session to per-worktree
hierarchy refs/worktree/* so that independent bisect sessions can
be done in different worktrees.
Will merge to 'next' after squashing the update in.
Sorry if I am missing something or repeating what myself or someone
else like Michael already said, but in the current doc there is:
Eventually there will be no more revisions left to bisect, and
you will have been left with the first bad kernel revision in
"refs/bisect/bad".
If we now just use "refs/worktree/bisect/bad" instead of
"refs/bisect/bad", it might break scripts that rely using
"refs/bisect/bad".
Christian, thanks for raising this one.
I do recall the thread and I might be the somebody like Michael you
remember, e.g. $gmane/275105---which did mention that "git bisect"
would not need changing if we kept refs/bisect/.
What was the reason why we chose to move to refs/worktree/ again? I
do not think there was an issue that we cannot keep refs/* in
general shared while having one (or more) subhierarchy of it per
worktree (otherwise we would not be using refs/worktree/*, but using
something outside refs/, like $GIT_DIR/worktree-refs/). Was there an
objection to refs/bisect being private from aesthetics point of view
(i.e. forcing everything per-worktree in refs/worktree/ would prevent
proliferation of refs/this and refs/that that need to be private
case by case), ignoring the practical issue of compatibility issues
around existing tools?
That is correct. IIRC, on one of these patch sets, I proposed accepting
both new and old refs, but you said that would be unnecessary (it might
have been the notes/merge one instead of this one).
I think one example of script, "gitk --bisect", does want to show
the DAG limited by bisect refs, but it does so using plumbing
without having to say refs/bisect/bad itself. Perhaps the thinking
(or lack of enough of it) went that no other uses by scripts need to
peek directly into refs/bisect/ hierarchy?
I did a quick search on github, and did not see any scripts that said
"refs/bisect".