From: Mike Rappazzo Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:54:34 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] worktree: add 'for_each_worktree' function Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Mike Rappazzo wrote: >> I wasn't sure that a bare repo would be considered a worktree. I >> don't think that it would be >> a good idea to include it. In the same vein that I can't checkout a >> branch in a bare repo, it >> figure that it shouldn't be in the list. > > I forgot to mention in my previous response that I have the opposite > view, and think that a bare repo should be included in the output of > "git worktree list". The reason is that the intention of "git worktree > list" is to give the user a consolidated view of the locations of all > components of his "workspace". By "workspace", I mean the repository > (bare or not) and its worktrees. > > In the typical case, the .git directory resides within the main > worktree (the first item output by "git worktree list"), thus is > easily found, however, if "git worktree list" hides bare repos, then > the user will have no way to easily locate the repository (without > resorting to lower-level commands or peeking at configuration files). This makes sense, but would we also want to decorate it in the `git worktree list` command? Would porcelain list output be able to differentiate it?