Re: What is the reason behind not hiding git worktrees from git?

> Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 09:26:54PM +0000, Jason Cho wrote:
> >> I think the best practice is to not add a work tre within the master work tree.
> >
> > And is that best practice documented somewhere?
> 
> I do not think it is documented anywhere.
> 
> In fact, I do not think the inventors of the worktree feature ever
> expected this end-user expectation that checking out multiple
> worktrees of the repository *INSIDE* a repository's checkout would
> be any useful without confusing users.
> 
> IOW, omission of the documentation is by an assumptionk that nobody
> would imagine doing in any other way.  
> 
> We can and should fix it retroactively, if the lack of documentation
> is not guiding our users in the right direction.  Any takers?
> 
> > IIRC there are some VCSs for which it is common practice to keep
> > checkouts of multiple branches side by side in the repository directory.
> 
> I can understand "side-by-side" but not "in".  Next to the primary
> workree (aka "initial clone") would be more common.
> 
> > IIRC the repository directory itself is not a checkout in this case.
> > Anyway, there is no obvious reason for anyone not familiar with git
> > internals to not do this.
> 
> Meaning anybody not familiar with the tool would do any random thing
> outside of the usage pattern that the users of the tool have been
> establishing over the years?  I can certainly understand that.  But
> then, creating a set of worktrees, one per branch, next to the
> primary worktree that checks out the 'main' branch, would also equally
> be a likely layout, I would imagine.