Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] worktree: add 'for_each_worktree' function

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Mike Rappazzo <rappazzo@gmail.com> 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?