On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 6:01 PM Caleb White [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sunday, October 6th, 2024 at 00:11, Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Also, since you're touching infer_backlink(), see [1] which makes some
changes nearby.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240923075416.54289-1-ericsunshine@charter.net/ (local)

Thanks for the heads up, what is the best way to move forward on this?
Should I base my patch series on that topic branch or bring in that
particular patch?

If that particular patch impacts your patch series in a way which
would require Junio (or any reviewer who wants to test your series) to
make non-trivial changes to resolve merge conflicts, then it would
probably be best to base your series atop that one (rather than
bringing that patch into your series). When composing the cover
material for your series, be sure to mention that you have based your
series atop that patch.

quoted

And you might be interested in [2] which may indicate that there are
some holes in the tests around worktrees which might need filling.
(Since your patches are whitespace-damaged, I haven't checked whether
your series succeeds or fails in the way the series to which [2] is a
response fails.)
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cQXFy=xPVpoSq6Wq0pxMRCjS=WbkgdO+3LySPX=q0nPCw@mail.gmail.com/ (local)

I just ran through the scenarios you described and everything works as
you would expect. This is because internally the code handles both
absolute and relative paths, and the worktree.path has been updated to
always be the absolute path. I will make this clear when I rewrite that
patch's commit message.

Thanks.