From: Eric Sunshine Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:37:02 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] worktree: add 'for_each_worktree' function Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Mike Rappazzo wrote: > 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? I don't have strong feelings about decorating the bare repository, if by "decorate", you mean adding a "[bare]" annotation or something. Verbose mode can certainly do so. For porcelain mode, we can (and should) be explicit about it.