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, 22:15 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqy1hjkkxc.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <878r9juflz.fsf@osv.gnss.ru>

Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com> writes:

> I agree "inline" is not much better than "main", nor "attached" is
> better than "linked". I just pulled mine out of thin air, and what's
> already there is probably fine.

Heh, the initial draft of my message you are responding to used "primary" (and "attached"), because they are the word I am accustomed to use (out of thin air) on the list a few times, before checking with the existing documentation to realize that we use "main" for that.

> That said, to be picky, "main" suggests
> that linked worktrees are somehow inferior. Are they?

I'd say that 'main' is different, not necessarily superiour, from all others and they are equally useful and usable. The difference is that it cannot be removed. There may be other differences I am forgetting, but I do not think it is about which is superiour and which is inferiour.