On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Mike Rappazzo <rappa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wasn't sure that a bare repo would be considered a worktree. I >> don't think that it would be >> a good idea to include it. In the same vein that I can't checkout a >> branch in a bare repo, it >> figure that it shouldn't be in the list. > > I forgot to mention in my previous response that I have the opposite > view, and think that a bare repo should be included in the output of > "git worktree list". The reason is that the intention of "git worktree > list" is to give the user a consolidated view of the locations of all > components of his "workspace". By "workspace", I mean the repository > (bare or not) and its worktrees. > > In the typical case, the .git directory resides within the main > worktree (the first item output by "git worktree list"), thus is > easily found, however, if "git worktree list" hides bare repos, then > the user will have no way to easily locate the repository (without > resorting to lower-level commands or peeking at configuration files).
This makes sense, but would we also want to decorate it in the `git worktree list` command? Would porcelain list output be able to differentiate it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
