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

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 21, 2017, 10:37 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8CBmfj8wY+LQzEshJT0Ya+nmAGs=K8b1Nyr3qinvCo4kA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170320185038.GU26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>>> While it may be true that you can have bare worktrees; I would question
>>> why anyone wants to do this, as the only thing it provides is an
>>> additional HEAD (plus its reflog).
>>
>> A more plausible situation is you start with a bare one as the
>> primary and used to make local clones to do your work in the world
>> before "git worktree".  It would be a natural extension to your
>> workflow to instead create worktrees of of that bare one as the
>> primary worktree with secondaries with working trees.
>
> For what it's worth, this conversation makes me think it was a mistake
> to call this construct a worktree.

For the record, I am totally confused with Junio's last line, with two "with"s, "worktree" and "working trees" in the same phrase :D

> It's fine for the command to have one name and the documentation to
> use a longer, clearer name to explain it.  What should that longer,
> clearer name be?

No comments from me. I'll let you know that if Eric (or Junio?) didn't stop me, we would have had $GIT_DIR/repos now instead of $GIT_DIR/worktrees, just some extra confusion toppings.

-- 
Duy