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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 6, 2023, 17:52 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq5y4nnq9b.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <2ba66542-9ae2-4b13-ae6b-f37dec6b72c7@app.fastmail.com>

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@khaugsbakk.name> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> But not with “worktree”:
>
>   “ A repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository) or one or more
>     worktrees attached to it. ...
>
> Since this entry claims that “bare repository” and “zero worktrees” are
> equivalent.

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.