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

From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Date: Sep 4, 2023, 17:56 UTC
Message-ID: <b5833396-7e04-465f-96f6-69d5280fa023@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPMMpoixKnr4BkKd8jeU+79Edhqtu4R7m8=BX4ZSYKdBHDzK=w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tao

Context for my own use: I use the default clone (named the same as the upstream repository) as the main worktree and name worktrees according to some topic. So if the repository is named `work-application` then I might have worktrees named things like `deployment-work`, `next-version-work`, and things like that. All of them sibling directories since they are all Intellij projects (to your point about making tooling treat them the same way). I usually use the main worktree so I am fine with one worktree being *special* (that it contains the `.git` directory).

I can understand that the main worktree/linked worktree dichotomy might feel artificial if you use, say, ten different wotrkees equally often. Or maybe one worktree per branch.

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.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023, at 16:41, Tao Klerks wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Because worktree use was so useful/widespread/critical on this project,
> and we already had a custom cloning process that introduced selective
> refspecs etc, we introduced a special clone topology: the initial clone
> is a bare repo, and that folder gets a specific clear name (ending in
> .git). Then we create worktrees attached to that bare repo.

This is interesting as a Git user. I've been encountering questions on StackOverflow where the questioner is using a bare repository which they make (or try to make) worktrees from. I've been telling them that making worktrees from a bare repository is a contradiction:[1]

> Bare repositories don’t have worktrees per definition. Or at least
> that’s what `man gitglossary says`. Of course what `git worktree` allows
> you to do trumps that. But it might be ill-defined.

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.

🔗 1: https://stackoverflow.com/a/76273222/1725151

Cheers