git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

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

From
Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>
Date
Sep 6, 2023, 22:11 UTC
Message-ID
<874jk7uf3a.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
In-Reply-To
<xmqqwmx3m82l.fsf@gitster.g>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 28 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@khaugsbakk.name> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I wrote that "(i.e. bare repository)" in 2df5387e (glossary:
>> describe "worktree", 2022-02-09) but did not mean that way.  
>>
>> A non-bare repository can reduce the number of its worktrees, but it
>> cannot go below one, because the directory with working tree files
>> and the .git/ subdirectory, i.e. its primary worktree, must exist
>> for it to be a non-bare repository.  Consequently a repository with
>> zero worktree is by definition a bare repository.
>>
>> But that does not have to mean all bare repositories can have no
>> worktrees.
>
> I re-read the glossary entry and I think the current text is mostly
> OK, except that it does not even have to mention "bare" at that
> position in the sentence.  A bare repository with zero worktrees is
> totally uninteresting in the explanation of the worktree.
Sounds reasonable.
Show 7 quoted lines
>
> We need to say that the repository data (configuration, refs and
> objecs) are mostly shared among worktrees while some data are kept
> per-worktree, which the current text adequately covers, and what is
> missing with respect to a bare repository is that we do not say
> worktrees can be attached after the fact to a repository that was
> created bare.

Why? Worktree could be attached after the fact to any repository. I don't see why we need to mention bareness here, as it's not special in this regard.

Show 30 quoted lines
>
> So, perhaps something along this line?
>
>  Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 16 +++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git c/Documentation/glossary-content.txt w/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> index 5a537268e2..6dba68ffc0 100644
> --- c/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> +++ w/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> @@ -694,10 +694,12 @@ The most notable example is `HEAD`.
>  	plus any local changes that you have made but not yet committed.
>  
>  [[def_worktree]]worktree::
> -	A repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository) or one or
> -	more worktrees attached to it. One "worktree" consists of a
> -	"working tree" and repository metadata, most of which are
> -	shared among other worktrees of a single repository, and
> -	some of which are maintained separately per worktree
> -	(e.g. the index, HEAD and pseudorefs like MERGE_HEAD,
> -	per-worktree refs and per-worktree configuration file).
> +	A repository can have zero or more worktrees attached to it.
> +	One "worktree" consists of a "working tree" and repository
> +	metadata, most of which are shared among other worktrees of
> +	a single repository, and some of which are maintained
> +	separately per worktree (e.g. the index, HEAD and pseudorefs
> +	like MERGE_HEAD, per-worktree refs and per-worktree
> +	configuration file).
> ++
> +Note that worktrees can be attached to an existing bare repository.
"shared among other worktrees" -> "shared among all worktrees"?

Also, if we do have "main worktree" and "linked worktree" as concepts, they need to be at least mentioned in the glossary, I believe.

Finally, if we do have "linked worktrees", then the phrasing should better use "linked" instead of "attached"? Alternatively, if "attached" fits better, let's call them "attached worktrees"?

-- 
Sergey Organov
Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Tao Klerks
Message 23 of 31 in “Is "bare"ness in the context of multiple worktrees weird? Bitmap error in git gc.”
  1. Tao KlerksSep 4, 2023
  2. Tao KlerksSep 4, 2023
  3. Tao KlerksSep 4, 2023
  4. Kristoffer HaugsbakkSep 4, 2023
  5. Kristoffer HaugsbakkSep 4, 2023
  6. Eric SunshineSep 5, 2023
  7. Kristoffer HaugsbakkSep 6, 2023
  8. Sergey OrganovSep 6, 2023
  9. Kristoffer HaugsbakkSep 6, 2023
  10. Tao KlerksSep 6, 2023
  11. Junio C HamanoSep 6, 2023
  12. Sergey OrganovSep 6, 2023
  13. Junio C HamanoSep 6, 2023
  14. Sergey OrganovSep 6, 2023
  15. Tao KlerksSep 7, 2023
  16. Sergey OrganovSep 7, 2023
  17. Kristoffer HaugsbakkSep 7, 2023
  18. Kristoffer HaugsbakkSep 7, 2023
  19. Junio C HamanoSep 7, 2023
  20. Junio C HamanoSep 6, 2023
  21. Kristoffer HaugsbakkSep 6, 2023
  22. Junio C HamanoSep 6, 2023
  23. Sergey OrganovSep 6, 2023
  24. Tao KlerksSep 5, 2023
  25. Eric SunshineSep 5, 2023
  26. Junio C HamanoSep 5, 2023
  27. Eric SunshineSep 5, 2023
  28. Junio C HamanoSep 5, 2023
  29. Tao KlerksSep 5, 2023
  30. Kristoffer HaugsbakkSep 6, 2023
  31. Tao KlerksSep 5, 2023

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.