Re: [PATCH 0/7] teach `worktree list` verbose mode and prunable annotations

[Rafael Silva <rafaeloliveira.cs@gmail.com>]

Eric Sunshine writes:

> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:22 AM Rafael Silva
> <rafaeloliveira.cs@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In c57b3367be (worktree: teach `list` to annotate locked worktree,
>> 2020-10-11) we taught `git worktree list` to annotate working tree that
>> is locked by appending "locked" text in order to signalize to the user
>> that a working tree is locked.  During the review, there was some
>> discussion about additional annotations and information that `list`
>> command could provide to the user that has long been envisioned and
>> mentioned in [2], [3] and [4].
>>
>> This patch series address some of these changes by teaching
>> `worktree list` to show "prunable" annotation, adding verbose mode and
>> extending the --porcelain format with prunable and locked annotation as
>> follow up from [1]. Additionally, it address one shortcoming for porcelain
>> format to escape any newline characters (LF and CRLF) for the lock reason
>> to prevent breaking format mentioned in [4] and [1] during the review
>> cycle.
>
> Thank you for working on this. I'm happy to see these long-envisioned
> enhancements finally taking shape. Before even reviewing the patches,
> I decided to apply them and play with the new features, and I'm very
> pleased to see that they behave exactly as I had envisioned all those
> years ago.
>
> Very nicely done.

Thank you. I'm glad to hear the patches are aligned with what you
envisioned.

> I'll review the patches when I finish responding to this cover letter.
>

Thank you for reviewing and applying the patches, really appreciate it.

>> The fifth patch adds worktree_escape_reason() that accepts a (char *)
>> text and returned the text with any LF or CRLF escaped. The caller is
>> responsible to freeing the escaped text. This is used by the locked
>> annotation in porcelain format. Currently, this is defined within
>> builtin/worktree.c as I was not sure whether libfying the function as
>> part of this series is a good idea. At this time it seems more sensible
>> to leave the code internally and libfying later once we are confident
>> about the implementation and whether it can be used in other part of the
>> code base but I'm open for suggestion.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand, but I had envisioned employing one of the
> codebase's existing quoting/escaping functions rather than crafting a
> new one from scratch. However, I'll reserve judgment until I actually
> read the patch.

Agreed. It make sense to reuse one of the already implemented functions
from the code base. for some reason I was not able to find it. I believe
this was cleared out in one of the patches replies by you and Phillip Wood.

I will remove this and reuse one of the existing function on the next
revision.

-- 
Thanks
Rafael