Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > The main worktree has to be treated specially because well.. it's >> > special from the beginning. So HEAD from the main worktree is >> > acccessible via the name "main/HEAD" (we can't use >> > "worktrees/main/HEAD" because "main" under "worktrees" is not >> > reserved). >> >> I do not quite follow. So with this, both refs/heads/master and >> main/refs/heads/master are good names for the master branch (even >> though the local branch names are not per worktree), because >> in the main worktree, refs/bisect/bad and main/refs/bisect/bad ought >> to mean the same thing. > > True. I think the ambiguation here is about the main worktree versus a > secondary worktree that is accidentally named "main". Then suddenly we > have to worktrees of the same name, and accessing them both via > worktrees/<id>/HEAD will not work, and there is no other way to > disambiguate them. So those who have happily been referring 'refs/heads/main/foo' as 'main/foo' now suddenly have to say 'refs/heads/main/foo' instead? > The rules are not touched. But it looks like everything still works as > expected (I'm adding tests to verify this) What I am worried about is that _your_ expectation may not coincide with the expectations of users, especially with ones with existing refs that overlap with the namespaces this series suddenly starts carving out and squatting on. As long as that won't be a problem, I think it is OK, even with 'main' not renamed to 'worktree-main' or somesuch.
