Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] git worktree (re)move
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-11-28 19:48:12
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref] writes:
v2 contains some style fix and adapts to the new get_worktrees() api from nd/worktree-list-fixup (which means it can't be built without that series). Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy (11): copy.c: import copy_file() from busybox copy.c: delete unused code in copy_file() copy.c: convert bb_(p)error_msg to error(_errno) copy.c: style fix copy.c: convert copy_file() to copy_dir_recursively() worktree.c: add validate_worktree() worktree.c: add update_worktree_location() worktree move: new command worktree move: accept destination as directory worktree move: refuse to move worktrees with submodules worktree remove: new command Documentation/git-worktree.txt | 28 ++- builtin/worktree.c | 181 ++++++++++++++++ cache.h | 1 + contrib/completion/git-completion.bash | 5 +- copy.c | 369 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ t/t2028-worktree-move.sh | 56 +++++ worktree.c | 84 ++++++++ worktree.h | 11 + 8 files changed, 724 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Does this round address the issue raised in http://public-inbox.org/git/alpine.DEB.2.20.1611161041040.3746@virtualbox by Dscho? Even if you are not tracking a fifo, for example, your working tree may have one created in t/trash* directory during testing, and letting platform "cp -r" taking care of it (if that is possible---I didn't look at the code that calls busybox copy to see if you are doing something exotic or just blindly copying everything in the directory) may turn out to be a more portable way to do this, and I suspect that the cost of copying one whole-tree would dominate the run_command() overhead.