Hi again Junio On Wed, Sep 6, 2023, at 22:26, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. > > We have used "main worktree" to refer to the working tree part (plus > the repository) of a non-bare repository. And it makes sense to > explain it together with the concept of "worktree", as the primary > one is very much special in that it cannot be removed. You can see > that "git worktree remove" would stop you from removing it with an > error message: > > fatal: '../there' is a main working tree. This gives the same error if `there` is a bare repository. Is that intended? This goes back to my point about missing nomenclature: it's weird if the “main working tree” can be a bare repository. PS: Is it correct that the error message says “main working tree” instead of “main worktree”? (See cc73385cf6 (worktree remove: new command, 2018-02-12.) I was thinking of spelunking the history further but thought that I would quickly ask in case I'm missing something obvious. > It probably does not add much value to introduce a new term > "inline". The reason that I like it is because it lets you describe a bare repository with linked worktrees. Not because it would replace “main worktree”. Although in light of Sergey's post about inline/attached, the “main worktree” term *might* start to look a bit anachronistic. But I'm not sure. > 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 that it is very elegant. > Perhaps we should borrow it to update the glossary, like so? Certainly. But although this looks like it completely describes everything that you want, I still think it is good to explicitly mention something like: “ Note that a bare repository may have ... Since although this can certainly be inferred from the text, it's good to have some redundancy when it comes to non-obvious cases. Cheers -- Kristoffer Haugsbakk
