Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Tao Klerks <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I like the nomenclature, I like the simple "zero (i.e. bare) or one >> inline worktree, zero or more attached worktrees" explanation. > [...] > It probably does not add much value to introduce a new term > "inline". Here is what "git worktree --help" has to say about it. > > A repository has one main worktree (if it's not a bare repository) and > zero or more linked worktrees. > > I applaud whoever wrote this sentence for packing so much good > information in a concise and easy-to-understand description. 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. That said, to be picky, "main" suggests that linked worktrees are somehow inferior. Are they? -- Sergey Organov
