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, 22:00 UTC
Message-ID: <878r9juflz.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqledjm4k2.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz> writes:
>
>> I like the nomenclature, I like the simple "zero (i.e. bare) or one
>> inline worktree, zero or more attached worktrees" explanation.
>

[...]

Show 8 quoted lines

> It probably does not add much value to introduce a new term
> "inline".  Here is what "git worktree --help" has to say about it.
>
>     A repository has one main worktree (if it's not a bare repository) and
>     zero or more linked worktrees.
>
> I applaud whoever wrote this sentence for packing so much good
> information in a concise and easy-to-understand description.

I agree "inline" is not much better than "main", nor "attached" is better than "linked". I just pulled mine out of thin air, and what's already there is probably fine. That said, to be picky, "main" suggests that linked worktrees are somehow inferior. Are they?

-- 
Sergey Organov