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, 22:34 UTC
Message-ID: <87y1hjszgu.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy1hjkkxc.fsf@gitster.g>

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

Show 20 quoted lines

> Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Heh, the initial draft of my message you are responding to used
> "primary" (and "attached"), because they are the word I am
> accustomed to use (out of thin air) on the list a few times, before
> checking with the existing documentation to realize that we use
> "main" for that.
>
>> That said, to be picky, "main" suggests
>> that linked worktrees are somehow inferior. Are they?
>
> I'd say that 'main' is different, not necessarily superiour, from
> all others and they are equally useful and usable.  The difference
> is that it cannot be removed.  There may be other differences I am
> forgetting, but I do not think it is about which is superiour and
> which is inferiour.

Well, if worktree created by "git clone/init" is not superior compared to that created by "git worktree", just different, then "main" might be not the best choice, but then, provided it's already in use, it's probably not that big deal either.

As a note, "primary" also suggests the rest are "secondary", and then "primary" one might not be there in the first place, leaving us with a set of "secondary" without "primary", that is a bit confusing.

"Embedded", "integrated", or even "default" come to mind as alternatives. However, if "attached" is decided upon, "inline" just follows naturally.