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

From: Tao Klerks <tao@klerks.biz>
Date: Sep 6, 2023, 18:04 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPMMpohgkH3h1zC_Q7O-07gYw8_7mdSsyX7vu1K1u5+CxKUaUQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c0a10738-86ba-4b3a-9e74-2568cc407621@app.fastmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 8:00 PM Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023, at 18:39, Sergey Organov wrote:

<SNIP>

Show 7 quoted lines

> >
> > As I see it, in fact a repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository)
> > or one inline worktree, as well as zero or more attached worktrees.
>
> Ah, thank you. I felt like the glossary/nomenclature was missing a few
> words and these ones seem to fill things in nicely.
>

Yes, I agree!!

I like the nomenclature, I like the simple "zero (i.e. bare) or one inline worktree, zero or more attached worktrees" explanation.