Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>>> While it may be true that you can have bare worktrees; I would question >>>> why anyone wants to do this, as the only thing it provides is an >>>> additional HEAD (plus its reflog). >>> >>> A more plausible situation is you start with a bare one as the >>> primary and used to make local clones to do your work in the world >>> before "git worktree". It would be a natural extension to your >>> workflow to instead create worktrees of of that bare one as the >>> primary worktree with secondaries with working trees. >> >> For what it's worth, this conversation makes me think it was a mistake >> to call this construct a worktree. > > For the record, I am totally confused with Junio's last line, with two > "with"s, "worktree" and "working trees" in the same phrase :D In case this wasn't just a tangential note, what I meant was: - In the old world, you may have had a single bare repository and then made clones, each of which has a working tree (i.e. non-bare clones), and worked inside these clones. - In the "git worktree" world, you can start from that same single bare repository, but instead of cloning it, use "git worktree" to create "worktree"s, each of which has a working tree, and work inside these "worktree"s. and the latter would be a natural extension to the workflow the former wanted to use. >> It's fine for the command to have one name and the documentation to >> use a longer, clearer name to explain it. What should that longer, >> clearer name be? > > No comments from me. I'll let you know that if Eric (or Junio?) didn't > stop me, we would have had $GIT_DIR/repos now instead of > $GIT_DIR/worktrees, just some extra confusion toppings. I forgot about that part of the history, but you are saying you wanted to call these "repos", not "worktrees"? I can see why somebody (or me?) would stop that by fearing "repo" is a bit too confusing with a "repository", in the same way that we are now realizing that "worktree" is too similar to an old synonym we used to call "working tree".