some apparent inaccuracies in "man git-worktree"

some apparent inaccuracies in "man git-worktree"

[Robert P. J. Day]

  more annoying pedantry (but you're used to that by now, right?) ...
from "man git-worktree", there seem to be some inaccuracies in the
SYNOPSIS regarding the "add" subcommand:

  git worktree add \
    [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>] <path> [<branch>]

  first, there's no mention of "-B" in that SYNOPSIS, even though it's
explained further down the man page.

  next, the SYNOPSIS seems misleading as it doesn't make clear that
the options -b, -B and --detach are mutually exclusive, which is made
clear in the worktree.c source:

    if (!!opts.detach + !!opts.new_branch + !!new_branch_force > 1)
            die(_("-b, -B, and --detach are mutually exclusive"));

and, to some extent, further down the man page:

  "If <branch> is omitted and neither -b nor -B nor --detach used,
   then, as a convenience, a new branch based at HEAD is created
   automatically, as if -b $(basename <path>) was specified."

  finally (and maybe i'm just not reading carefully enough), it's not
clear what happens if you add a worktree at a given commit without
specifying *any* of -b, -B or --detach. the obvious result should be a
new worktree checked out at a detached HEAD and, interestingly, if i
do that, then from the main tree, i see:

  $ git worktree list
  /home/rpjday/k/git   516fb7f2e73d [master]
  /home/rpjday/k/temp  c470abd4fde4 (detached HEAD)
  $

but from within the worktree, if i ask for the status, i see only:

  $ git status
  Not currently on any branch.
  nothing to commit, working tree clean
  $

where i would normally have expected to see "detached HEAD", is there
a reason that's not displayed?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: some apparent inaccuracies in "man git-worktree"

[Eric Sunshine]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> from "man git-worktree", there seem to be some inaccuracies in the
> SYNOPSIS regarding the "add" subcommand:
>
>   git worktree add \
>     [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>] <path> [<branch>]
>
>   first, there's no mention of "-B" in that SYNOPSIS, even though it's
> explained further down the man page.

Omission of "-B" from the synopsis was intentional. From cbdf60fa18
(worktree: add -b/-B options, 2015-07-06):

    worktree: add -b/-B options

    One of git-worktree's roles is to populate the new worktree, much like
    git-checkout, and thus, for convenience, ought to support several of the
    same shortcuts. Toward this goal, add -b/-B options to create a new
    branch and check it out in the new worktree.

    (For brevity, only -b is mentioned in the synopsis; -B is omitted.)

Whether or not the omission was actually a good decision is
questionable. The thinking, at the time, may have been that users
already familiar with "-b" in 'git checkout' would likewise be
familiar with (and be able to infer) "-B", thus it wasn't important to
state its existence explicitly in the synopsis, which was already
getting lengthy. Of course, that decision does not assist newcomers,
so adding "-B" to the synopsis would help the page better stand on its
own.

>   next, the SYNOPSIS seems misleading as it doesn't make clear that
> the options -b, -B and --detach are mutually exclusive, which is made
> clear in the worktree.c source:
>
>     if (!!opts.detach + !!opts.new_branch + !!new_branch_force > 1)
>             die(_("-b, -B, and --detach are mutually exclusive"));

Failure to update the synopsis to indicate mutual exclusion appears to
be a simple oversight in ab0b2c53ed (worktree: make --detach mutually
exclusive with -b/-B, 2015-07-17) in response to:
https://public-inbox.org/git/55A8F4B1.9060304@drmicha.warpmail.net/

>   finally (and maybe i'm just not reading carefully enough), it's not
> clear what happens if you add a worktree at a given commit without
> specifying *any* of -b, -B or --detach. the obvious result should be a
> new worktree checked out at a detached HEAD and, interestingly, if i
> do that, then from the main tree, i see:
>
>   $ git worktree list
>   /home/rpjday/k/git   516fb7f2e73d [master]
>   /home/rpjday/k/temp  c470abd4fde4 (detached HEAD)
>   $
>
> but from within the worktree, if i ask for the status, i see only:
>
>   $ git status
>   Not currently on any branch.
>   nothing to commit, working tree clean
>   $
>
> where i would normally have expected to see "detached HEAD", is there
> a reason that's not displayed?

Someone more familiar with this bit can correct me if I'm wrong, but I
believe that the "HEAD detached at/from <branch>" you normally see
with 'git status' is derived from the reflog, and if it can't find the
information in the reflog, it instead shows the generic "Not currently
on any branch" (which is the equivalent of the "(detached HEAD)" you
see in "git worktree list").

Each worktree has its own newly-created reflog, which does _not_
contain enough information for 'git status' to present the more
detailed "detached" message, thus it falls back to the generic one.
Perhaps seeding the worktree's reflog with a bit more information at
creation time would be a good #leftoverbits task.

Re: some apparent inaccuracies in "man git-worktree"

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Eric Sunshine wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > from "man git-worktree", there seem to be some inaccuracies in the
> > SYNOPSIS regarding the "add" subcommand:
> >
> >   git worktree add \
> >     [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>] <path> [<branch>]
> >
> >   first, there's no mention of "-B" in that SYNOPSIS, even though it's
> > explained further down the man page.
>
> Omission of "-B" from the synopsis was intentional. From cbdf60fa18
> (worktree: add -b/-B options, 2015-07-06):
>
>     worktree: add -b/-B options
>
>     One of git-worktree's roles is to populate the new worktree, much like
>     git-checkout, and thus, for convenience, ought to support several of the
>     same shortcuts. Toward this goal, add -b/-B options to create a new
>     branch and check it out in the new worktree.
>
>     (For brevity, only -b is mentioned in the synopsis; -B is omitted.)
>
> Whether or not the omission was actually a good decision is
> questionable. The thinking, at the time, may have been that users
> already familiar with "-b" in 'git checkout' would likewise be
> familiar with (and be able to infer) "-B", thus it wasn't important to
> state its existence explicitly in the synopsis, which was already
> getting lengthy. Of course, that decision does not assist newcomers,
> so adding "-B" to the synopsis would help the page better stand on its
> own.
>
> >   next, the SYNOPSIS seems misleading as it doesn't make clear that
> > the options -b, -B and --detach are mutually exclusive, which is made
> > clear in the worktree.c source:
> >
> >     if (!!opts.detach + !!opts.new_branch + !!new_branch_force > 1)
> >             die(_("-b, -B, and --detach are mutually exclusive"));
>
> Failure to update the synopsis to indicate mutual exclusion appears to
> be a simple oversight in ab0b2c53ed (worktree: make --detach mutually
> exclusive with -b/-B, 2015-07-17) in response to:
> https://public-inbox.org/git/55A8F4B1.9060304@drmicha.warpmail.net/
>
> >   finally (and maybe i'm just not reading carefully enough), it's not
> > clear what happens if you add a worktree at a given commit without
> > specifying *any* of -b, -B or --detach. the obvious result should be a
> > new worktree checked out at a detached HEAD and, interestingly, if i
> > do that, then from the main tree, i see:
> >
> >   $ git worktree list
> >   /home/rpjday/k/git   516fb7f2e73d [master]
> >   /home/rpjday/k/temp  c470abd4fde4 (detached HEAD)
> >   $
> >
> > but from within the worktree, if i ask for the status, i see only:
> >
> >   $ git status
> >   Not currently on any branch.
> >   nothing to commit, working tree clean
> >   $
> >
> > where i would normally have expected to see "detached HEAD", is there
> > a reason that's not displayed?
>
> Someone more familiar with this bit can correct me if I'm wrong, but I
> believe that the "HEAD detached at/from <branch>" you normally see
> with 'git status' is derived from the reflog, and if it can't find the
> information in the reflog, it instead shows the generic "Not currently
> on any branch" (which is the equivalent of the "(detached HEAD)" you
> see in "git worktree list").
>
> Each worktree has its own newly-created reflog, which does _not_
> contain enough information for 'git status' to present the more
> detailed "detached" message, thus it falls back to the generic one.
> Perhaps seeding the worktree's reflog with a bit more information at
> creation time would be a good #leftoverbits task.

  i'm not sure what i can add to this, but i'm going to leave it to
folks higher up the food chain than me to resolve any of the above.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: some apparent inaccuracies in "man git-worktree"

[Jonathan Nieder]

Hi,

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:

>>> from "man git-worktree", there seem to be some inaccuracies in the
>>> SYNOPSIS regarding the "add" subcommand:
>>>
>>>   git worktree add \
>>>     [-f] [--detach] [--checkout] [--lock] [-b <new-branch>] <path> [<branch>]
>>>
>>>   first, there's no mention of "-B" in that SYNOPSIS, even though it's
>>> explained further down the man page.
>>
>> Omission of "-B" from the synopsis was intentional. From cbdf60fa18
>> (worktree: add -b/-B options, 2015-07-06):
[...]
>> Whether or not the omission was actually a good decision is
>> questionable.
[...]
>>>   next, the SYNOPSIS seems misleading as it doesn't make clear that
>>> the options -b, -B and --detach are mutually exclusive, which is made
>>> clear in the worktree.c source:
[...]
>> Failure to update the synopsis to indicate mutual exclusion appears to
>> be a simple oversight in ab0b2c53ed (worktree: make --detach mutually
>> exclusive with -b/-B, 2015-07-17)
[...]
>>>   finally (and maybe i'm just not reading carefully enough), it's not
>>> clear what happens if you add a worktree at a given commit without
>>> specifying *any* of -b, -B or --detach. the obvious result should be a
>>> new worktree checked out at a detached HEAD and, interestingly, if i
>>> do that, then from the main tree, i see:
>>>
>>>   $ git worktree list
>>>   /home/rpjday/k/git   516fb7f2e73d [master]
>>>   /home/rpjday/k/temp  c470abd4fde4 (detached HEAD)
>>>   $
>>>
>>> but from within the worktree, if i ask for the status, i see only:
>>>
>>>   $ git status
>>>   Not currently on any branch.
>>>   nothing to commit, working tree clean
>>>   $
>>>
>>> where i would normally have expected to see "detached HEAD", is there
>>> a reason that's not displayed?
>>
>> Someone more familiar with this bit can correct me if I'm wrong, but I
>> believe that the "HEAD detached at/from <branch>" you normally see
>> with 'git status' is derived from the reflog,
[...]
>   i'm not sure what i can add to this, but i'm going to leave it to
> folks higher up the food chain than me to resolve any of the above.

For what it's worth, the folks higher up the food chain you're
referring to don't exist, so the most likely outcome here is that
nothing happens.  People working on patches (suggesting wording,
formatting as a patch, reviewing, testing, etc) are as high on the
food chain as it gets. :)

One thing we've discussed on this list before is setting up a bug
tracker to allow people another way to collaborate (filing a clear
summary of a problem for interested people to work on).  More on that
subject later today --- feel free to poke me if I don't get such a
message out.

Thanks,
Jonathan