Re: Is "bare"ness in the context of multiple worktrees weird? Bitmap error in git gc.

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023, at 02:38, Eric Sunshine wrote:

My interpretation of the documentation leads to contradictions. So I thought of another one: A bare repository *can* have worktrees, but if it does will in that case only have *linked* worktrees, since the `repository.git` directory by definition does not have a working tree and it therefore cannot be considered a worktree itself. By extension, a linked worktree might be linked to a bare repository. Thus there is no contradiction.

For example: there are four directory trees associated with the `repo` repository:

1. `repo.git`: the directory tree with the bare repository; no worktree in
   *that* directory tree
2. `a`: worktree with a gitfile that points to `repo.git`
3. `b`: worktree with a gitfile that points to `repo.git`
4. `c`: worktree with a gitfile that points to `repo.git`

So you have:

• One repository • Four directory trees • Three worktrees

This interpretation seems completely in line with “bare repository” in the glossary:

  “ A bare repository is normally an appropriately named directory with a
    .git suffix that does not have a locally checked-out copy of any of
    the files under revision control. That is, all of the Git
    administrative and control files that would normally be present in the
    hidden .git sub-directory are directly present in the repository.git
    directory instead, and no other files are present and checked
    out. Usually publishers of public repositories make bare repositories
    available.

But not with “worktree”:

  “ A repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository) or one or more
    worktrees attached to it. ...

Since this entry claims that “bare repository” and “zero worktrees” are equivalent.

Nothwithstanding any implementation/documentation disagreement, I think that this interpretation at least is coherent.

But note how (for me) it is a bit awkward to refer to a “bare repository” in this context since I need to add “the directory tree” in order to emphasize that we are talking about `repo.git`; normally you can kind of loosely talk about “the repository” and still get the precise meaning that you intend across, but in this case we have four directory trees which are all *the same repository*. (Right?) So just saying “the bare repository” can be misleading since it might hint that the three worktrees are not part of the repository. (Perhaps there isn't enough nomenclature to clearly talk about this particular case/setup?)

But with all of that in mind, perhaps the glossary could read something like this instead (no reflowing):[1][2]

(`man git-worktree` might also need to be updated.)

† 1: Applied onto 1fc548b2d6 (The sixth batch, 2023-09-05) 🔗 2: https://github.com/git/git/compare/master...LemmingAvalanche:git:bare-and-worktrees?expand=1

Cheers

Kristoffer

-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] Try to reword what a worktree is

---
 Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)