> > > - Teach get_main_worktree() to use is_bare_repository() instead,
> > > introduced in 7d1864ce67 ("Introduce is_bare_repository() and
> > > core.bare configuration variable", 2007-01-07) and updated in
> > > e90fdc39b6 ("Clean up work-tree handling", 2007-08-01). This solves
> > > the "git branch -D <name>" problem described above. However...
> > >
> > > - If a repository has core.bare=1 but the "git" command is being run
> > > from one of its added worktrees, is_bare_repository() returns false
> > > (which is fine, since there is a worktree available). However,
> > > commands like "git worktree list" currently distinguish between a
> > > repository that has core.bare=1 but has a worktree available, and a
> > > repository that is truly non-bare (core.bare=0). To preserve this
> > > distinction, also check core.bare when setting is_bare. If
> > > core.bare=1, trust it, and otherwise, use is_bare_repository().
> >
> > I am not sure if the latter is worth keeping, but the former
> > definitely is a huge improvement, I would imagine.
>
> I think that both are improvements, with the former definitely being the
> more impactful one.
Thanks.
These comments spurred me to look at it a bit closer, and omitting the
latter not only results in "git worktree list" changes, but means that
the following test now fails:
test_expect_success 'bare main worktree has HEAD at branch deleted by
secondary worktree' '
git init nonbare &&
test_commit -C nonbare x &&
git clone --bare nonbare bare &&
git -C bare worktree add --detach ../secondary master &&
git -C secondary branch -D master
'
(At current master, it succeeds.)
In the next reroll, I'll include this test and update the commit message
to use this as a rationale instead.
> > Somebody did "git branch -D <that-branch>" by accident in a submodule
> > checkout, or something?
>
> /me shudders at the thought of it
Yes, that happened.
> The patch makes tons of sense to me.
Thanks!
