Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > This extension is most useful in multiple worktree setup because you > now have an option to store per-worktree config (which is either > .git/config.worktree for main worktree, or > .git/worktrees/xx/config.worktree for linked ones). Heh. "This is useful if you have multiple" is true without saying, because this is totally useless if you have only a single worktree. I'd suggest writing the above without "most useful". > This design places a bet on the assumption that the majority of config > variables are shared so it is the default mode. A safer move would be > default writes go to per-worktree file, so that accidental changes are > isolated. Warning: devil's advocate mode on. Done in either way, this will confuse the users. What is the reason why people are led to think it is a good idea to use multiple worktrees, even when they need different settings? What do they want out of "multiple worktrees linked to a single repository" as opposed to just a simple "as many clones as necessary"? Reduced disk footprint? Is there a better way to achieve that without the downside of multiple worktrees (e.g. configuration need to be uniform)? > (*) "git config --worktree" points back to "config" file when this > extension is not present so that it works in any setup. Shouldn't it barf and error out instead? A user who hasn't enabled the extension uses --worktree option and misled to believe that the setting affects only a single worktree, even though the change is made globally---that does not sound like a great end-user experience.
