On November 25, 2017 3:06 PM Thomas Gummerer wrote:
<big snip>

however we currently document one behaviour, which I would like to change

(I usually have branches

without a / in that I want to look at) we currently document one behaviour,

which I'd like to change.  So 

in that case we are a bit worried about backwards compatibility, and how

this will affect current users

that have a certain expectation of how the command is supposed to work,

hence the discussion of

whether to hide the new behaviour behind a flag or not.

Either way, if we do put the behaviour behind a flag, I'll also add a

configuration variable, which can

be set to enable the new behaviour so one doesn't have to type out the flag

all the time.

To be consistent with other commands, you could put path after -- and the
ambiguity with refs containing '/' goes away, as refs before the -- would
always be considered refs while after you have paths.

What I don't like is the current add syntax of:
git worktree add [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>]
<path> [<branch>]

where the path-spec precedes branch making things a bit icky. It might be
better to have an alternate syntax of:

git worktree add [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>]
<path> [<branch>]
git worktree add [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>]
[<branch>] -- <path>

But since we only have one path, that may be redundant. Just a thought, as
-- avoids a lot of interpretation evils. While we're here, I wonder whether
<branch> should be changed to <ref-spec> for more general use. Consider
release identifiers using tags, and using the tag instead of branch to
define commit on which the worktree is based.

Cheers,
Randall

-- Brief whoami: NonStop&UNIX developer since approximately
UNIX(421664400)/NonStop(211288444200000000) 
-- In my real life, I talk too much.