From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:50:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-worktree: use working tree for trees on the file system
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:

>> 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