Thomas Gummerer [off-list ref] writes:
Currently 'git worktree add <path>' creates a new branch named after the
basename of the <path>, that matches the HEAD of whichever worktree we
were on when calling "git worktree add <path>".
It's sometimes useful to have 'git worktree add <path> behave more like
the dwim machinery in 'git checkout <new-branch>', i.e. check if the new
branch name uniquely matches the branch name of a remote-tracking
branch, and if so check out that branch and set the upstream to the
remote-tracking branch.
This paragraph was a bit hard to sympathize because it was not
obvious that the new feature still assumes how <path> is used to
compute the name of the new branch. Perhaps if it were written like
so:
check if the new branch name, derived from the basename of
the <path>, uniquely matches the branch name of ...
I would not have had to read it twice to understand what was going
on.
+--[no-]guess-remote::
+ With `add`, instead of creating a new branch from HEAD when
+ `<commit-ish>` is not given, if there exists a tracking branch
+ in exactly one remote matching the basename of the path, base
+ the new branch on the remote-tracking branch, and mark the
+ remote-tracking branch as "upstream" from the new branch.
+
Would
git worktree add --guess-remote <path> <branch>
be an error? It is allowed as long as <branch> and the basename of
the <path> matches? The option is silently ignored? Something
else?
I am reacting to "with `add`" part of this desciption. I wouldn't
be asking if it said "With `worktree add <path>` without <branch>",
as that would make the scenario I am wondering about automatically
"undefined". Yes, we should strive for leaving things undefined as
little as practically possible, but at least saying something like
"without <branch>" explicitly there would make sure that readers
know in what scenario this option is meant to be used a bit better.
quoted hunk
@@ -389,6 +392,13 @@ static int add(int ac, const char **av, const char *prefix)
int n;
const char *s = worktree_basename(path, &n);
opts.new_branch = xstrndup(s, n);
+ if (guess_remote) {
+ struct object_id oid;
+ const char *remote =
+ unique_tracking_name(opts.new_branch, &oid);
+ if (remote)
+ branch = remote;
+ }
}
I think the answer is "silently ignored", as the above hunk is
inside "if (ac < 2 && !opts.new_branch && !opts.detach)".
On 11/27, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Thomas Gummerer [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Currently 'git worktree add <path>' creates a new branch named after the
basename of the <path>, that matches the HEAD of whichever worktree we
were on when calling "git worktree add <path>".
It's sometimes useful to have 'git worktree add <path> behave more like
the dwim machinery in 'git checkout <new-branch>', i.e. check if the new
branch name uniquely matches the branch name of a remote-tracking
branch, and if so check out that branch and set the upstream to the
remote-tracking branch.
This paragraph was a bit hard to sympathize because it was not
obvious that the new feature still assumes how <path> is used to
compute the name of the new branch. Perhaps if it were written like
so:
check if the new branch name, derived from the basename of
the <path>, uniquely matches the branch name of ...
I would not have had to read it twice to understand what was going
on.
Sorry about that, will re-phrase.
quoted
+--[no-]guess-remote::
+ With `add`, instead of creating a new branch from HEAD when
+ `<commit-ish>` is not given, if there exists a tracking branch
+ in exactly one remote matching the basename of the path, base
+ the new branch on the remote-tracking branch, and mark the
+ remote-tracking branch as "upstream" from the new branch.
+
Would
git worktree add --guess-remote <path> <branch>
be an error? It is allowed as long as <branch> and the basename of
the <path> matches? The option is silently ignored? Something
else?
I am reacting to "with `add`" part of this desciption. I wouldn't
be asking if it said "With `worktree add <path>` without <branch>",
as that would make the scenario I am wondering about automatically
"undefined". Yes, we should strive for leaving things undefined as
little as practically possible, but at least saying something like
"without <branch>" explicitly there would make sure that readers
know in what scenario this option is meant to be used a bit better.
As you mentioned below it's silently ignored. The main reason for not
erroring out is that it would get a little bit (although not too much)
more annoying once the config variable is introduced. If it's
strongly preferred to error out when <branch> is given I can change it
to that.
Either way I'll update the documentation.
Thanks!
quoted
@@ -389,6 +392,13 @@ static int add(int ac, const char **av, const char *prefix)
int n;
const char *s = worktree_basename(path, &n);
opts.new_branch = xstrndup(s, n);
+ if (guess_remote) {
+ struct object_id oid;
+ const char *remote =
+ unique_tracking_name(opts.new_branch, &oid);
+ if (remote)
+ branch = remote;
+ }
}
I think the answer is "silently ignored", as the above hunk is
inside "if (ac < 2 && !opts.new_branch && !opts.detach)".