Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-worktree: use working tree for trees on the file system

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 20, 2017, 18:50 UTC
Message-ID: <20170320185038.GU26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbmsvx1ey.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

>> 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.

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?

Thanks, Jonathan