Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] branch: description for orphan branch errors

From: Rubén Justo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 01:35:51 +0100

On 7/1/23 0:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Rubén Justo <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> Thinking of this as a whole, perhaps after this series we can add:
> 
> Why "after"?  If we already know that the existing patches are
> making things worse and need to fix the regression with a future
> patch to make it usable again, why introduce a regression in the
> first place?
> 

I'm not sure if it is so worse, and if the optimization is a fix.

We're actually paying for worktrees twice in:
reject_rebase_or_bisedt_branch() and
replace_each_worktree_head_symref().

Making the change this way makes more obvious IMHO what we are moving
and why.

Start moving the ref_exists() in 1/2, easily leads to 2/1 and this patch
squashed with 1/2, for little gain (IMHO) and worse history.

This is why I think it's a good sequence.  But I understand your point
and I'm not opposed to doing it as you suggest if you think the current
way doesn't pay off.