From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2023 18:08:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Is "bare"ness in the context of multiple worktrees weird? Bitmap error in git gc.
Message-ID: <c3e11a9c-071a-42a9-83ca-b2b078495a45@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq5y4nnq9b.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023, at 19:52, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.

I see. Zero worktrees implies bare repository, but bare repository does
not imply zero worktrees. I got my logical connectives mixed up.

Thanks

-- 
Kristoffer Haugsbakk