On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Mike Rappazzo <rappazzo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I wasn't sure that a bare repo would be considered a worktree. I > don't think that it would be > a good idea to include it. In the same vein that I can't checkout a > branch in a bare repo, it > figure that it shouldn't be in the list. I forgot to mention in my previous response that I have the opposite view, and think that a bare repo should be included in the output of "git worktree list". The reason is that the intention of "git worktree list" is to give the user a consolidated view of the locations of all components of his "workspace". By "workspace", I mean the repository (bare or not) and its worktrees. In the typical case, the .git directory resides within the main worktree (the first item output by "git worktree list"), thus is easily found, however, if "git worktree list" hides bare repos, then the user will have no way to easily locate the repository (without resorting to lower-level commands or peeking at configuration files). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html