On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > >>> While it may be true that you can have bare worktrees; I would question >>> why anyone wants to do this, as the only thing it provides is an >>> additional HEAD (plus its reflog). >> >> A more plausible situation is you start with a bare one as the >> primary and used to make local clones to do your work in the world >> before "git worktree". It would be a natural extension to your >> workflow to instead create worktrees of of that bare one as the >> primary worktree with secondaries with working trees. > > For what it's worth, this conversation makes me think it was a mistake > to call this construct a worktree.
For the record, I am totally confused with Junio's last line, with two "with"s, "worktree" and "working trees" in the same phrase :D > It's fine for the command to have one name and the documentation to > use a longer, clearer name to explain it. What should that longer, > clearer name be? No comments from me. I'll let you know that if Eric (or Junio?) didn't stop me, we would have had $GIT_DIR/repos now instead of $GIT_DIR/worktrees, just some extra confusion toppings. -- Duy
