[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       git
Subject:    Re: Minor missing features in worktree compare to new-workdir
From:       Paul Smith <paul () mad-scientist ! net>
Date:       2017-06-14 12:41:29
Message-ID: 1497444089.13409.108.camel () mad-scientist ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 08:31 -0400, Yichao Yu wrote:
> 1. the branch name in new-workdir has the same behavior as checkout,
> i.e. when it matches a remote branch name a local branch tracking that
> remote branch will be created and checked out. worktree gives an error
> in this case. This is very useful for fetching someone else' feature
> branch into a different work dir for testing.

I agree; this behavior of worktree is frustrating.  It's a very common
use-case to aid in code reviews etc. and it's not easy to explain to
people what they need to do to make this work.

> 2. worktree doesn't seem to support multiple worktree on the same
> branch.

I think this is a very good thing about worktrees as opposed to
workdirs.

In a situation where I may want multiple worktrees pointing to the same
commit I just check out the SHA rather than the branch: you can have as
many branches set to the same SHA (detached HEAD) as you like, and
there's no concern about dirty workspaces.  This latter can actually be
a really big problem (suppose the workdir contained some modified files
then you update another workdir with the same branch... it's not easy to
figure out what happened here!)
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]