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

> I wrote that "(i.e. bare repository)" in 2df5387e (glossary:
> describe "worktree", 2022-02-09) but did not mean that way.
>
> A non-bare repository can reduce the number of its worktrees, but it
> cannot go below one, because the directory with working tree files
> and the .git/ subdirectory, i.e. its primary worktree, must exist
> for it to be a non-bare repository.  Consequently a repository with
> zero worktree is by definition a bare repository.
>
> But that does not have to mean all bare repositories can have no
> worktrees.