On Sat, May 31, 2025, at 00:23, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [PATCH] t0602: demo v2.43.0 worktree problem
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Even though this is a bug report and the patch you included doesn't
> provide a fix, you did craft a couple tests, presumably with the
> intention that they should be used by whomever fixes the problem. As
> such, I'll give them a bit of a critique...
Yes if s/should/could.[1] These are reproduction scripts as patches. So
they can be applied and show the current state (first test is
expect-failed, the second is expect-success) of the code.
My previous reproduction script with the git-clone(1) is inconvenient
but either cloning or using a worktree is necessary in order to truly
reproduce the problem (as opposed to simulating it).
A `-subject-prefix='PATCH THROWAWAY'` would have been in order.
On the other hand I did write the first test (the second is ugly) as if
I was doing a quote-unquote real patch. In that light learning more
about the proper style is useful for me. So thanks for the review!
> Overall, although the first new test makes sense, it is not at all
> clear to me what the second test is checking or what its purpose is.
The idea behind the second test was to show a case where it does work
with old worktrees. But simulating the old worktree didn’t make sense
since it looks just like a new worktree when there *are* indeed worktree
refs. So it just ended up being confusing.
† 1: As in troubleshooting and fixing the problem, not the final test in
the submitted patch. The test is unlikely to be good enough for
that. But the patch is signed off on the small chance that it can
be used because why not.
