Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:
Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule
slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently,
the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or
untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we
decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that
are empty AND they are not the current working directory?
Is that generally doable? What would we do when the directory the
subcommand was started from (or one of its parent directories) is
not just missing but has to be a file in the revision the subcommand
is trying to checkout?
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:29 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule
slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently,
the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or
untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we
decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that
are empty AND they are not the current working directory?
Is that generally doable? What would we do when the directory the
subcommand was started from (or one of its parent directories) is
not just missing but has to be a file in the revision the subcommand
is trying to checkout?
The same problem (an untracked directory is in the way) already exists
and has to be handled by all relevant subcommands, right?
In particular, if the current working directory only has untracked
files in it, then the directory cannot be removed. That will prevent
us from checking out the revision we want, so we have to throw an
error.
So my idea just piggy backs on that, resulting in the same error also
being shown when the current working directory has 0 untracked files
within it.
Since the whole thread started from, "maybe we should throw an error
instead of continuing if it would result in the current working
directory getting deleted", I believe this idea does exactly what we
were looking for...and nicely tailors the new error cases to precisely
the situations we wanted them for -- when the current working
directory would have been removed by the old code.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 11:08:35PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:29 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Ooh, this sounds intriguing to me...but what if we changed that rule
slightly and just decided to never make the cwd go away? Currently,
the checkout code removes directories if they have no tracked or
untracked or ignored files left, i.e. if they're empty. What if we
decide to only have remove_scheduled_dirs() remove directories that
are empty AND they are not the current working directory?
Is that generally doable? What would we do when the directory the
subcommand was started from (or one of its parent directories) is
not just missing but has to be a file in the revision the subcommand
is trying to checkout?
The same problem (an untracked directory is in the way) already exists
and has to be handled by all relevant subcommands, right?
In particular, if the current working directory only has untracked
files in it, then the directory cannot be removed. That will prevent
us from checking out the revision we want, so we have to throw an
error.
So my idea just piggy backs on that, resulting in the same error also
being shown when the current working directory has 0 untracked files
within it.
Since the whole thread started from, "maybe we should throw an error
instead of continuing if it would result in the current working
directory getting deleted", I believe this idea does exactly what we
were looking for...and nicely tailors the new error cases to precisely
the situations we wanted them for -- when the current working
directory would have been removed by the old code.
Yeah, this is definitely what I had in mind for my original suggestion:
extending the "do not delete directory if it contains an untracked file"
rule to the cwd. I guess I was thinking of it as an error, but it really
_isn't_ an error in most cases, as long as we don't need to recreate
another entry there (and if we do, then as you say, the existing error
paths should handle it).
It does leave crufty directories behind in the working tree that Git
would not then delete (because it only cleans up directories after it
removes their contents, and there are no contents left to remove).
That's probably not a big deal, though. If you are moving around history
with things like rebase or bisect, you'd likely move back to a working
tree with the directory anyway. And it's not like you can't end up with
such directories through other means (and "git clean -d" takes care of
them).
So I do like the approach.
-Peff
PS I'm assuming this is all taking the cwd of the process based on the
original "prefix" (since Git processes generally move up to the
top-level of the working tree). But that still leaves the problem for
_other_ processes. E.g., if I am working in two terminals, one could
be in "subdir/" and I could issue a bisect or rebase command from the
other at the top-level, which would put one of them into the
confusing state. You could strengthen the rule to "is _any_ process
using this as a cwd", but it's hard to do so portably. And I know
I've been annoyed by similar such safety valves before ("why can't I
delete this? Argh, some process I don't care about is squatting on
it").