Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-worktree: use working tree for trees on the file system

From: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 7, 2017, 16:14 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+P7+xotTt3e=yCp=ajHM7pV6Am_MZj5+e71-vCV1+utOa1XJg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ee8e8671-066b-311e-8cad-31a1ab22eec7@grubix.eu>

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Duy Nguyen venit, vidit, dixit 25.03.2017 13:07:
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Are we at a point where we can still rename the new feature at least? If
>>>> yes, and keeping everything else is mandatory, than "workspace" or
>>>> "working space" may be a serious contender for naming the new thing.
>>>
>>> I do not have a good answer to the first question, but workspace
>>> does sound like a good name for what this feature is trying to
>>> achieve.
>>>
>>
>> Now is not too late to rename the command from worktree to workspace
>> (and keep "worktree" as an alias that will be eventually deleted).
>> Should we do it? I would keep file names, function names... unchanged
>> though, not worth the amount of new conflicts.
>
> I guess I would go for a full change. Our technical documentation often
> merely consists of the source code, so we should reduce potential
> confusion there, too.
>
> Michael

Yes, changing the command name but not all the code would cause more confusion in the long run.

However, personally I never confused "worktree" and "working trees" myself. I fee like they are related concepts anyways, in that a fresh clone has one worktree which its its working tree. Renaming it all to workspace doesn't bother me either.

Thanks, Jake