From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD45C1F42D for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:05:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751271AbeC3OFO (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:05:14 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com ([209.85.128.179]:34641 "EHLO mail-wr0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750794AbeC3OFN (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:05:13 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id o8so8159814wra.1 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:05:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=T6y49BrTt4DmUApwrdpoh3h35V1T2kFrLaosGU+RSzk=; b=ApxuDRI7fx4Yg1HbpaG3Q14pdaZ29pDyjgHnTT1fzS7pstYwRqeOhj3taIDtHQffg2 n8U6Lm5AwhfmgVmJtbiUBhjBF2BRtv112cK+tRFeoL0+eezgp7kgHyJUtMxA+tiEIKmm 4NqKhHIWFGf1eoz31WbtpKRMdYDoIpxhVa0v3RSQ6NTIU1HNvW6IVatSIWDC5l3NsxgP yXh1LS2fP783UEKnKio0Diy371dbinO+M19my9iiTwFcLvnkd3fq5TylDcyhwpjys5C5 X7db0kDRZHFzkyWJ9r9vQsUU1JxgfSsud3bh9e1ZBpws+PpSmcvNaXadWKxTjisqfSZr 2dpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=T6y49BrTt4DmUApwrdpoh3h35V1T2kFrLaosGU+RSzk=; b=sbZ1JhwdP01sHCDyewg11I6DsFc9Qaptxic1GOYdeh90F3RPrNiCwjW0PwTrLwa6Ts xN6tbqAlt2ZDpRj0V0gokEe0aSgsSiPXl0ESpMDiM667GeJprPCmvQaWBrF7dgACN/Uq QUAdPLsSfCi8HtAkSHYHmKPT3mqIkDsVR72jugPmYRjxToqpP/Cigj9J/UNW1wRw6F59 5wnXNpSQWpgaymGvzIguUDmW4MXCfXpEfPquPgyu0ZmVxBhTB3bQmrFQXiK9C4/OM0UQ 7jnGCRj1R50g1kH5Gc/q75bH3bqkkOCMSEENSVhlGhJ12w5nBAQN8QedKWsfjje0DMKF JuzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EXtirv+rlMBEbtnR0+PRfxjwOi7fs3ePr8Y+jjwkRgHo604n0p T9kWZ6vd/rTOn+J985RwhzK/HK9T X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+ePN04IRB834kAybCoRQ2mKmMDxsUyEQXpfcfeCY5hUVYykMyrb5paAnEKHN79Cv7nFyE6ag== X-Received: by 10.223.185.76 with SMTP id b12mr10036745wrg.205.1522418712076; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc73832-dals21-2-0-cust969.20-2.cable.virginm.net. [81.110.231.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l73sm13791048wma.10.2018.03.30.07.05.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:08:39 +0100 From: Thomas Gummerer To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Git List , =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy , Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] worktree: teach "add" to check out existing branches Message-ID: <20180330140839.GD2629@hank> References: <20180317222219.4940-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20180325134947.25828-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 03/27, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > Thanks Eric for the review of the previous round and Duy and Junio for > > additional comments. > > This round should address all of Eric's comments from the previous round. > > Thanks, it appears to cover my review comments from the previous > round. I do have some additional comments on this round (which I could > have raised with the previous round if I had thought of them at the > time). > > > As explained in more detail in a reply to the review comment directly, > > I did not add an enum to 'struct add_opts', for 'force_new_branch' and > > 'checkout_existing_branch', but instead removed 'force_new_branch' > > from the struct as it's not required. > > Makes sense. In fact, I had thoughts along these lines during your > previous dwim-ery series. See my comments on patch 3/6. > > > The rest of the updates are mainly in the user facing messages, > > documentation and one added test. > > Interdiff below: > > The interdiff looks sane. Unfortunately, due to UI regressions, I'm > having second thoughts about whether this series is going in the right > direction. See my comments on patch 2/6. Thanks for your reviews of this series! As I mentioned in the reply there I'm going to see whether or not I can fix those regressions (hopefully I can :)), and send a re-roll.