| Message ID | 20190106002619.54741-3-nbelakovski@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | | expand |
nbelakovski@gmail.com writes: > From: Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@gmail.com> > > In order to more clearly display which branches are active, the output > of git branch is modified to mark branches checkout out in a linked > worktree with a "+" and color them in cyan (in contrast to the current > branch, which will still be denoted with a "*" and colored in green) > > This is meant to simplify workflows related to worktree, particularly > due to the limitations of not being able to check out the same branch in > two worktrees and the inability to delete a branch checked out in a > worktree. When performing branch operations like checkout and delete, it > would be useful to know more readily if the branches in which the user > is interested are already checked out in a worktree. I do not think it is warranted to paint the safety features as "limitations". A branch that is checked out in another worktree cannot be checked out to be worked on, as that will make the checkout of the other worktree out of sync. If you want to work on that branch, you can either (1) go to that worktree that has a checkout of that branch and work there, or (2) go to that worktree that has a checkout of that branch, check out a different branch there, come back to the worktree you want to work in and check out that branch. Knowing where that other worktree is is the first step in either case. And a branch that is checked out in a worktree cannot be removed, as it is a sign that it is still being worked on for a branch to have been checked out somewhere. If you do want to remove that branch, you need to go to that worktree that has a checkout of that branch, check out a different branch there, and then remove it. Again, knowing where that other worktree is is the fist thing you need to know. But then I am not sure if the feature being added by these patches is a good match for that justification. For one thing, it would be more direct and helpful way for git checkout one-branch git branch -d one-branch to say "The branch `one-branch` is checked out in a worktree at $DIRECTORY" when they refused to go ahead. And that would eliminate the need for this new feature to help these two use cases. In fact, these two command already behave that way, so the paragraph I just commented on is not a good justification for this new feature at all. Besides, showing "That branch is checked out somewhere" would not help user to decide "ah, if I want to work on that branch, I need to chdir to that directory" with the patch in question, as it only shows "It is checked out _somewhere_" without saying where. > The git worktree list command contains the relevant information, however > this is a much less frquently used command than git branch. It is not a good justification. If the "relevant information" given by the command is necessary one, the user can run that command. If the situation where that "relevant information" becomes necessary is rare, the command is run much less frequently is not a problem---it is expected. And overloading a more frequently used command with information that is less frequently wanted is actually not a great design. A more relevant justification may be that even though the information can already be found in "worktree list" output, it would give us flexibility in presentation to allow the custom format in for-each-ref to show it. So, I am between moderately Meh to fairly negative on this step; Meh in the sense that "thanks to the previous step, we _could_ do this, it does not give incorrect information, and it makes the output more cheerful, but it does not add that much useful and actionable piece of information".
On 07/01/2019 19:04, Junio C Hamano wrote: > nbelakovski@gmail.com writes: > >> From: Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@gmail.com> >> >> In order to more clearly display which branches are active, the output >> of git branch is modified to mark branches checkout out in a linked >> worktree with a "+" and color them in cyan (in contrast to the current >> branch, which will still be denoted with a "*" and colored in green) >> >> This is meant to simplify workflows related to worktree, particularly >> due to the limitations of not being able to check out the same branch in >> two worktrees and the inability to delete a branch checked out in a >> worktree. When performing branch operations like checkout and delete, it >> would be useful to know more readily if the branches in which the user >> is interested are already checked out in a worktree. > I do not think it is warranted to paint the safety features as > "limitations". Is this not just a case of needing to clarify that this is 'safety' related to the _users_ mental model (or lack of) relative to the limited information that was previously given by the branch command's list. You are right that there is no data safety issue, but users make mistakes when they misunderstand the situation. > > A branch that is checked out in another worktree cannot be checked > out to be worked on, as that will make the checkout of the other > worktree out of sync. If you want to work on that branch, you can > either (1) go to that worktree that has a checkout of that branch > and work there, or (2) go to that worktree that has a checkout of > that branch, check out a different branch there, come back to the > worktree you want to work in and check out that branch. Knowing > where that other worktree is is the first step in either case. > > And a branch that is checked out in a worktree cannot be removed, as > it is a sign that it is still being worked on for a branch to have > been checked out somewhere. I'm not sure that all users will recognise the signs, which I think is one reason for the value of the patch. > If you do want to remove that branch, > you need to go to that worktree that has a checkout of that branch, > check out a different branch there, and then remove it. Again, > knowing where that other worktree is is the fist thing you need to > know. > > But then I am not sure if the feature being added by these patches > is a good match for that justification. I'd agree that the justification needs clarified. > > For one thing, it would be more direct and helpful way for > > git checkout one-branch > git branch -d one-branch > > to say "The branch `one-branch` is checked out in a worktree at > $DIRECTORY" when they refused to go ahead. And that would eliminate > the need for this new feature to help these two use cases. > > In fact, these two command already behave that way, so the paragraph > I just commented on is not a good justification for this new feature > at all. > > Besides, showing "That branch is checked out somewhere" would not > help user to decide "ah, if I want to work on that branch, I need to > chdir to that directory" with the patch in question, as it only > shows "It is checked out _somewhere_" without saying where. > >> The git worktree list command contains the relevant information, however >> this is a much less frquently used command than git branch. > It is not a good justification. If the "relevant information" given > by the command is necessary one, the user can run that command. If > the situation where that "relevant information" becomes necessary is > rare, the command is run much less frequently is not a problem---it > is expected. And overloading a more frequently used command with > information that is less frequently wanted is actually not a great > design. But leaving the older command unaware of the newer developments and the user unwise as to its missing info is equally a poor situation. > > A more relevant justification may be that even though the > information can already be found in "worktree list" output, it would > give us flexibility in presentation to allow the custom format in > for-each-ref to show it. > > So, I am between moderately Meh to fairly negative on this step; Meh > in the sense that "thanks to the previous step, we _could_ do this, > it does not give incorrect information, and it makes the output more > cheerful, but it does not add that much useful and actionable piece > of information". The patch did appear to me as being a proper update to the branch command to include the information about the branches in the other worktrees Philip
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 1:43 PM Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> wrote: > > On 07/01/2019 19:04, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I do not think it is warranted to paint the safety features as > > "limitations". > > Is this not just a case of needing to clarify that this is 'safety' > related to the _users_ mental model (or lack of) relative to the limited > information that was previously given by the branch command's list. > > You are right that there is no data safety issue, but users make > mistakes when they misunderstand the situation. Not trying to paint anything one way or another. I found that these features got in the way of my workflows and didn't see any immediate reason why they had to exist. Thinking about it a bit more, is it unreasonable to delete a branch even if it's checked out in a worktree as long as the user uses git branch --delete --force or -D? This would leave the worktree in a detached head state, but all the data would be untouched. The output of deletion could mention that the branch had been checked out in a worktree so that the user is fully informed. Checking out the same branch in two worktrees should be technically possible to implement safely, but I don't see a use case for having the same branch checked out in multiple worktrees anyway. Why use multiple worktrees at that point? If a user really wants the same contents in two directories they can work around this limitation/safety feature by just making another branch pointing at the same commit. But anyway I'm just explaining why I chose the word 'limitation'. > > If you do want to remove that branch, > > you need to go to that worktree that has a checkout of that branch, > > check out a different branch there, and then remove it. Again, > > knowing where that other worktree is is the fist thing you need to > > know. This just seems silly to me when git branch --delete has a --force option. But that's off topic. > > > >> The git worktree list command contains the relevant information, however > >> this is a much less frquently used command than git branch. > > It is not a good justification. If the "relevant information" given > > by the command is necessary one, the user can run that command. If > > the situation where that "relevant information" becomes necessary is > > rare, the command is run much less frequently is not a problem---it > > is expected. And overloading a more frequently used command with > > information that is less frequently wanted is actually not a great > > design. > But leaving the older command unaware of the newer developments and the > user unwise as to its missing info is equally a poor situation. > > > > A more relevant justification may be that even though the > > information can already be found in "worktree list" output, it would > > give us flexibility in presentation to allow the custom format in > > for-each-ref to show it. > > > > So, I am between moderately Meh to fairly negative on this step; Meh > > in the sense that "thanks to the previous step, we _could_ do this, > > it does not give incorrect information, and it makes the output more > > cheerful, but it does not add that much useful and actionable piece > > of information". Allow me to add some color to my original commit message. The point of this patch is so that the user is not surprised when they see the message that this branch is checked out in another worktree when trying to delete it or check it out, since they have presumably run git branch recently and seen the formatted output indicating that a branch they may want to delete/checkout is checked out in a worktree. This was my frustration that prompted me to dive into this in the first place - I'm cleaning up my branches and all of a sudden git decides it doesn't want to let me delete one because it's checked out somewhere else, even though I know I don't care about it because I know the branch has already been merged upstream, or is old, or whatever. I thought, if git branch output could at least let me know that it's going to treat some branches differently, I can be proactive about things and go to my worktree and delete the branch, or skip trying to clean it up or not check it out. I'll pursue the above-mentioned topic of allowing git branch -D to allow the user to delete branches checked out in a worktree separately, but even if that goes through, I think this patch would still be useful in that it tells me that I can't check out the branches that are colored in cyan. Does that make more sense?
Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@gmail.com> writes: > Not trying to paint anything one way or another. I found that these > features got in the way of my workflows and didn't see any immediate > reason why they had to exist. Thinking about it a bit more, is it > unreasonable to delete a branch even if it's checked out in a worktree > as long as the user uses git branch --delete --force or -D? [For ease of discussion, let's assume that our worktree has a checkout of branch B, and you are mucking with that branch in another worktree connected to the same repository] It is probably a sane enhancement to allow but require --force to delete branch B in the other worktree. It is a different matter to allow "git branch -m AnotherBranch B" run in the other worktree to overwrite branch B--it will be a disaster if we allowed it and then committed what we have in our worktree. > This would > leave the worktree in a detached head state, It does not. It will leave us on branch B that is unborn, and the next commit will start that branch with a root commit. > but all the data would be > untouched. As far as the person, who is working in our worktree, is concerned, she wanted to extend the history of branch B before you deleted it in another worktree. But because you deleted B while she was looking the other way, she ended up creating a root commit, losing all the history behind that branch. I'd grant you that "--force" will give us an excuse when she complains, though. Most likely, you and she are the same person, but one big point in the ability to work in multiple worktrees is to allow the user to switch context and multi-task. When she gives branch B its own worktree, she does so because she wants to have a stable place to work on it, without getting affected by other things she does to the repository in other worktrees.
I will start a separate thread containing these replies for the potential change to allow deleting branches checked out in worktrees. Getting back on track for this series, specifically this 2/3 patch, how do you feel about it? As I pointed out the goal is to communicate to the user that the branches marked/colored will behave differently from the other branches if the user tries to delete them or check them out.
diff --git a/Documentation/git-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-branch.txt index bf5316ffa9..b3eca6ffdc 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-branch.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-branch.txt @@ -26,13 +26,14 @@ DESCRIPTION ----------- If `--list` is given, or if there are no non-option arguments, existing -branches are listed; the current branch will be highlighted with an -asterisk. Option `-r` causes the remote-tracking branches to be listed, -and option `-a` shows both local and remote branches. If a `<pattern>` -is given, it is used as a shell wildcard to restrict the output to -matching branches. If multiple patterns are given, a branch is shown if -it matches any of the patterns. Note that when providing a -`<pattern>`, you must use `--list`; otherwise the command is interpreted +branches are listed; the current branch will be highlighted in green and +marked with an asterisk. Any branches checked out in linked worktrees will +be highlighted in cyan and marked with a plus sign. Option `-r` causes the +remote-tracking branches to be listed, and option `-a` shows both local and +remote branches. If a `<pattern>` is given, it is used as a shell wildcard to +restrict the output to matching branches. If multiple patterns are given, a +branch is shown if it matches any of the patterns. Note that when providing +a `<pattern>`, you must use `--list`; otherwise the command is interpreted as branch creation. With `--contains`, shows only the branches that contain the named commit diff --git a/builtin/branch.c b/builtin/branch.c index 0c55f7f065..2a24153b78 100644 --- a/builtin/branch.c +++ b/builtin/branch.c @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ static char branch_colors[][COLOR_MAXLEN] = { GIT_COLOR_NORMAL, /* LOCAL */ GIT_COLOR_GREEN, /* CURRENT */ GIT_COLOR_BLUE, /* UPSTREAM */ + GIT_COLOR_CYAN, /* WORKTREE */ }; enum color_branch { BRANCH_COLOR_RESET = 0, @@ -54,7 +55,8 @@ enum color_branch { BRANCH_COLOR_REMOTE = 2, BRANCH_COLOR_LOCAL = 3, BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT = 4, - BRANCH_COLOR_UPSTREAM = 5 + BRANCH_COLOR_UPSTREAM = 5, + BRANCH_COLOR_WORKTREE = 6 }; static const char *color_branch_slots[] = { @@ -64,6 +66,7 @@ static const char *color_branch_slots[] = { [BRANCH_COLOR_LOCAL] = "local", [BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT] = "current", [BRANCH_COLOR_UPSTREAM] = "upstream", + [BRANCH_COLOR_WORKTREE] = "worktree", }; static struct string_list output = STRING_LIST_INIT_DUP; @@ -342,9 +345,10 @@ static char *build_format(struct ref_filter *filter, int maxwidth, const char *r struct strbuf local = STRBUF_INIT; struct strbuf remote = STRBUF_INIT; - strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(HEAD)%%(then)* %s%%(else) %s%%(end)", - branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT), - branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_LOCAL)); + strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(HEAD)%%(then)* %s%%(else)%%(if)%%(worktreepath)%%(then)+ %s%%(else) %s%%(end)%%(end)", + branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT), + branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_WORKTREE), + branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_LOCAL)); strbuf_addf(&remote, " %s", branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_REMOTE)); diff --git a/t/t3200-branch.sh b/t/t3200-branch.sh index 478b82cf9b..e404f6e23c 100755 --- a/t/t3200-branch.sh +++ b/t/t3200-branch.sh @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch --list -v with --abbrev' ' test_expect_success 'git branch --column' ' COLUMNS=81 git branch --column=column >actual && cat >expected <<\EOF && - a/b/c bam foo l * master n o/p r + a/b/c + bam foo l * master n o/p r abc bar j/k m/m master2 o/o q EOF test_cmp expected actual @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch --column with an extremely long branch name' ' cat >expected <<EOF && a/b/c abc - bam ++ bam bar foo j/k @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch with column.*' ' git config --unset column.branch && git config --unset column.ui && cat >expected <<\EOF && - a/b/c bam foo l * master n o/p r + a/b/c + bam foo l * master n o/p r abc bar j/k m/m master2 o/o q EOF test_cmp expected actual @@ -349,7 +349,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch -v with column.ui ignored' ' cat >expected <<\EOF && a/b/c abc - bam ++ bam bar foo j/k diff --git a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh index ee6787614c..94ab05ad59 100755 --- a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh +++ b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh @@ -240,6 +240,27 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch --format option' ' test_i18ncmp expect actual ' +test_expect_success '"add" a worktree' ' + mkdir worktree_dir && + git worktree add -b master_worktree worktree_dir master +' + +cat >expect <<'EOF' +* <GREEN>(HEAD detached from fromtag)<RESET> + ambiguous<RESET> + branch-one<RESET> + branch-two<RESET> + master<RESET> ++ <CYAN>master_worktree<RESET> + ref-to-branch<RESET> -> branch-one + ref-to-remote<RESET> -> origin/branch-one +EOF +test_expect_success TTY 'worktree colors correct' ' + test_terminal git branch >actual.raw && + test_decode_color <actual.raw >actual && + test_cmp expect actual +' + test_expect_success "set up color tests" ' echo "<RED>master<RESET>" >expect.color && echo "master" >expect.bare &&
From: Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@gmail.com> In order to more clearly display which branches are active, the output of git branch is modified to mark branches checkout out in a linked worktree with a "+" and color them in cyan (in contrast to the current branch, which will still be denoted with a "*" and colored in green) This is meant to simplify workflows related to worktree, particularly due to the limitations of not being able to check out the same branch in two worktrees and the inability to delete a branch checked out in a worktree. When performing branch operations like checkout and delete, it would be useful to know more readily if the branches in which the user is interested are already checked out in a worktree. The git worktree list command contains the relevant information, however this is a much less frquently used command than git branch. --- Documentation/git-branch.txt | 15 ++++++++------- builtin/branch.c | 12 ++++++++---- t/t3200-branch.sh | 8 ++++---- t/t3203-branch-output.sh | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)