From: Andy Koppe Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2026 23:26:04 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] doc: glossary: update per-worktree refs Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 at 08:41, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 10:28:50PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.adoc b/Documentation/glossary-content.adoc > > index b2c582254b..eff6d23215 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.adoc > > +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.adoc > > @@ -494,10 +494,16 @@ exclude;; > > interface than the <>. > > > > [[def_per_worktree_ref]]per-worktree ref:: > > - Refs that are per-<>, rather than > > - global. This is presently only <> and any refs > > - that start with `refs/bisect/`, but might later include other > > - unusual refs. > > + A <> that is specific to a <>, > > + rather than shared between all worktrees. All > > + <>, such as <>, are > > + per-worktree, as are refs that start with `refs/bisect/`, > > + `refs/worktree/` or `refs/rewritten/`. > > ++ > > +<> are also specific to each worktree. > > Should we maybe also turn this into an itemized list? Makes it easier to > see at a glance which rrefs are per-worktree, and it becomes easier to > extend going forward. Done in v2. > > +See "REFS" in linkgit:git-worktree[1] for how to access the > > +per-worktree refs of other worktrees. > > > > [[def_pseudoref]]pseudoref:: > > A name that can be used like a <> to refer to > > @@ -788,5 +794,5 @@ and pseudorefs. > > "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). > > + (e.g. the index, per-worktree refs such as HEAD, pseudorefs > > + such as MERGE_HEAD, and the per-worktree configuration file). > > This is a bit curious as you distinguish between per-worktree refs and > pseudorefs, even though you mention both of them as part of the > per-worktree ref section. It's difficult, because pseudorefs are per-worktree, but they aren't refs. I thought they should still be mentioned under "per-worktree refs", without calling them refs. > I wonder whether we should simply refer to > that section without naming any examples. Good idea. Done in v2. Andy