Re: Is "bare"ness in the context of multiple worktrees weird? Bitmap error in git gc.

From: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz>
Date: Sep 5, 2023, 15:48 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPMMpohc-pOD33NE_wSwYnMYKQYEtAQ64B2qwKZmUM38Euk9mw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b5833396-7e04-465f-96f6-69d5280fa023@app.fastmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 7:57 PM Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> wrote:

>
> And then from that vantage point it might feel wasteful to dedicate an
> unused main worktree—with its own working tree—to just sit somewhere for
> its `.git` directory, essentially.

Yep, especially in my case where a worktree contains 200,000 files and 5GB; especially on Windows, that's a high tax to pay pointlessly.

Show 9 quoted lines

>
> The glossary says under “worktree” (on Git 2.42):
>
> > A repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository) or one or more
> > worktrees attached to it.
>
> And as someone who never has needed to use a bare repository + worktrees
> I've just left it at that.
>

Thank you for this reference - given Eric's later answers I'll aim to change the text rather than respect its current implication, but knowing what needs to change is hugely helpful :)

(not that I know what to change the text *to*, but I guess there's time to think about that)