Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> But not with “worktree”: >>> >>> “ A repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository) or one or more >>> worktrees attached to it. ... >>> >>> Since this entry claims that “bare repository” and “zero worktrees” are >>> equivalent. >> >> I wrote that "(i.e. bare repository)" in 2df5387e (glossary: >> describe "worktree", 2022-02-09) but did not mean that way. >> >> A non-bare repository can reduce the number of its worktrees, but it >> cannot go below one, because the directory with working tree files >> and the .git/ subdirectory, i.e. its primary worktree, must exist >> for it to be a non-bare repository. Consequently a repository with >> zero worktree is by definition a bare repository. >> >> But that does not have to mean all bare repositories can have no >> worktrees. > > I re-read the glossary entry and I think the current text is mostly > OK, except that it does not even have to mention "bare" at that > position in the sentence. A bare repository with zero worktrees is > totally uninteresting in the explanation of the worktree. Sounds reasonable. > > We need to say that the repository data (configuration, refs and > objecs) are mostly shared among worktrees while some data are kept > per-worktree, which the current text adequately covers, and what is > missing with respect to a bare repository is that we do not say > worktrees can be attached after the fact to a repository that was > created bare. Why? Worktree could be attached after the fact to any repository. I don't see why we need to mention bareness here, as it's not special in this regard. > > So, perhaps something along this line? > > Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 16 +++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git c/Documentation/glossary-content.txt w/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > index 5a537268e2..6dba68ffc0 100644 > --- c/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > +++ w/Documentation/glossary-content.txt > @@ -694,10 +694,12 @@ The most notable example is `HEAD`. > plus any local changes that you have made but not yet committed. > > [[def_worktree]]worktree:: > - A repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository) or one or > - more worktrees attached to it. One "worktree" consists of a > - "working tree" and repository metadata, most of which are > - shared among other worktrees of a single repository, and > - some of which are maintained separately per worktree > - (e.g. the index, HEAD and pseudorefs like MERGE_HEAD, > - per-worktree refs and per-worktree configuration file). > + A repository can have zero or more worktrees attached to it. > + One "worktree" consists of a "working tree" and repository > + metadata, most of which are shared among other worktrees of > + a single repository, and some of which are maintained > + separately per worktree (e.g. the index, HEAD and pseudorefs > + like MERGE_HEAD, per-worktree refs and per-worktree > + configuration file). > ++ > +Note that worktrees can be attached to an existing bare repository. "shared among other worktrees" -> "shared among all worktrees"? Also, if we do have "main worktree" and "linked worktree" as concepts, they need to be at least mentioned in the glossary, I believe. Finally, if we do have "linked worktrees", then the phrasing should better use "linked" instead of "attached"? Alternatively, if "attached" fits better, let's call them "attached worktrees"? -- Sergey Organov
