Re: [PATCH] worktree add: be tolerant of corrupt worktrees
- Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 18:49:38 +0700
- From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] worktree add: be tolerant of corrupt worktrees
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 2:46 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:50 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > find_worktree() can die() unexpectedly because it uses real_path()
> > instead of the gentler version. When it's used in 'git worktree add' 
> > and there's a bad worktree, this die() could prevent people from adding
> > new worktrees.
> This is good to know because, to fix , I think we'll want to add a
> new function akin to find_worktree(), but without magic suffix
> matching (that is, just literal absolute path comparison).
Yeah. find_worktree() was made to handle command line options from
worktree's move/remove, it's probably a bit too magical for this case.
I still want to store relative path in "gitdir" files at some point,
which would complicate the last "absolute path comparison" part a bit.
But it should be manageable.
> : https://public-inbox.org/git/0308570E-AAA3-43B8-A592-F4DA9760DBED@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> : https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig+cQh8hxeoVjLHDKhAcZVQPpPT5v0AUY8gsL9=qfJ7z-L2A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > The "bad" condition to trigger this is when a parent of the worktree's
> > location is deleted. Then real_path() will complain.
> > Use the other version so that bad worktrees won't affect 'worktree
> > add'. The bad ones will eventually be pruned, we just have to tolerate
> > them for a bit.
> The patch itself makes sense, though, as Shaheed noted in his
> response, pruning seems to get short-circuited somehow under this
> situation; perhaps that needs its own fix, but certainly shouldn't
> hold up this fix.
I might have missed that detail. Thanks for pointing out. Will get another look.