bug#63829: 29.0.90; project-find-file's future history breaks with common-parent-directory

[sbaugh]

Spencer Baugh <sbaugh@janestreet.com> writes:
> Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev> writes:
>> I think the design there was to use relative file names in history? Or
>> a different variable for project file name history (which would use
>> relative names only). I'm not ruling that out, but the patch proposed
>> here is a little more focused.
>>
>> OTOH, it only allows finding the "current" file in the other project,
>> but not other files that were previously visited too. Spencer, what do
>> you think about that capability? Do you also feel it is missing and
>> would like to look into it next? Then the current patch might be the
>> wrong direction.
>
> Hm, the main thing I want is to make it very easy to visit the current
> file in another project - I am frequently getting user requests for that
> feature.  (Mainly because our workflow heavily uses a "git worktree"
> equivalent, where users have one project for each bug/branch they're
> working on, all with basically the same layout, so "visit the same file
> in a different project" is also "visit the same file in a different
> branch", which is often useful.  (I actually might work on some code to
> help implement the same kind of workflow for Emacs development, one
> worktree per bug/branch))
>
> I'm not sure I understand the alternative - the idea would be to share
> project file name history between all projects?  I guess that could be
> nice, although I don't personally use file name history that much, and
> AFAIK it wouldn't solve any concrete user problems, so I'm not really
> motivated to implement it.
>
> However, if we did share project file name history in that way, I'd want
> to still automatically prepend the "current file" as history.  Even if
> we didn't navigate to the current file via project-find-file, I still
> want to make it very easy to visit the current file in another project.
> Just sharing project file name history doesn't provide that.

Any thoughts about this and my earlier patch?  I still am interested in
providing this feature.