From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D10C4727C for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 07:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C67620789 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 07:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725843AbgI3HfU (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2020 03:35:20 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:38822 "EHLO mail-ej1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725535AbgI3HfT (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2020 03:35:19 -0400 Received: by mail-ej1-f67.google.com with SMTP id dd13so1352494ejb.5 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 00:35:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=V4eqmn6/0neGvY4iIr28qdd0gEPt7rf4u6b1nctFzOA=; b=OHVJYMtHgSY4bii+lqHycyVdVp33cmUii9nld4w0TUoT/cvDhouLNZ9HVSx7TfUjfU PXpmMph6uzgJSynMwwTVbsPpNuzVuGFtDMHH0jT5uIn/i2c8/isWHeMHKpjM2H7mwHIl F9IL0xNW2zDiTTTH+rlYvb5Mhmbqxn4qWG3/6XEiAQNj35ZTa2d43hymeX/7UIKU5n1f 0tO/GC0C2pFdZgNGFgH9jubenzlSxCLUGdtvXuGn1HaqZvLqOFUOijXFuPmgcrej0h/e u9X4jar8SjjdoT5r100MWx1u+UclRra7+fPKc59NnxkTphXI+44S/YbQHQVstgvHZxQv Tscg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ur7KMsqOohHosKD1YfTuyO3yShKmhysUZjdTB/7R9E6dXO7tY pGohMNQk//ayMbO8A34ejYsP/jfnOJrEuwZuSnw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMcbvAqlFpTueJziITR9Z+qKAyw64teNHEtlYImU/lNJrjhS/vVqnaceXSLx0/LKSc+sXW3nvyVfk6wNYvqJE= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:50e:: with SMTP id j14mr559202eja.138.1601451317940; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 00:35:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200928154953.30396-1-rafaeloliveira.cs@gmail.com> <20200928154953.30396-2-rafaeloliveira.cs@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Sunshine Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 03:35:07 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] worktree: teach `list` to mark locked worktree To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Rafael Silva , Git List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 5:38 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > Rafael Silva writes: > > The output of `worktree list` command is extended to mark a locked > > worktree with `(locked)` text. This is used to communicate to the > > user that a linked worktree is locked instead of learning only when > > attempting to remove it. > > For this change, it might look like this: > > The "git worktree list" shows the absolute path to the working > tree, the commit that is checked out and the name of the branch. > It is not immediately obvious which of the worktrees, if any, > are locked. > > "git worktree remove" refuses to remove a locked worktree with > an error message. If "git worktree list" told which worktrees > are locked in its output, the user would not even attempt to > remove such a worktree. Nicely written. I might end the final sentence like this: ... the user would not even attempt to remove such a worktree or would know to use `git worktree remove -f -f `. > > diff --git a/builtin/worktree.c b/builtin/worktree.c > > @@ -676,8 +676,12 @@ static void show_worktree(struct worktree *wt, int path_maxlen, int abbrev_len) > > + if (!is_main_worktree(wt) && > > + worktree_lock_reason(wt)) > > + strbuf_addstr(&sb, " (locked)"); > > Is this because for the primary worktree, worktree_lock_reason() > will always yield true? > > ... goes and looks ... > > Ah, OK, the callers are not even allowed to ask the question on the > primary one. That's a bit strange API but OK. That is indeed a slightly hostile API, and it wouldn't hurt to change it simply to return 'false' for the main worktree, but that's not something this patch series need tackle.