On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Eric Sunshine <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Eric Sunshine <[email protected]> wrote: >> There's another instance: 3473ad0 (checkout: don't require a work tree >> when checking out into a new one, 2014-11-30) added this: >> >> if (!new_worktree) >> setup_work_tree(); >> >> which the "worktree add" patch changed to: >> >> setup_work_tree(); >> >> which doesn't hurt (since setup_work_tree() protects itself against >> multiple invocations) but isn't semantically clean. If I understand >> correctly, I think a better approach would be to move the >> setup_work_tree() call to worktree.c just before it invokes >> git-checkout, and revert 3473ad0 entirely (including this bit): >> >> - { "checkout", cmd_checkout, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE }, >> +{ "checkout", cmd_checkout, RUN_SETUP }, >> >> so that git-checkout once again requires a worktree. > > I mis-stated that a bit. The bit about "multiple invocations" isn't > relevant. The point is that I think that 3473ad0 can simply be > reverted as long as worktree.c calls setup_work_tree() before invoking > git-checkout.
Please ignore my idiocy. Of course worktree.c can't call setup_work_tree() on behalf of the sub git-checkout invocation. Reverting 3473ad0 is the correct thing to do with the introduction of "worktree add" since it removes the special case of having to be able to run git-checkout without a worktree. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
