<rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>Ah, yes, that exposes (and has to expose) the worktree ID. It still does > not have to >>be unique across repositories (only has to unique among the worktrees that > share >>the same single repository). > > I might be mistaken, but I think the intent of the worktree series being > discussed > deliberately wanted the worktree ID to be globally unique on a specific > machine. That is my understanding, but I do not understand why such a uniqueness is needed. Repositories are not even aware of other repositories, in any sense to make it matter to know worktree IDs other repositories are using. Until there is an attempt to link a worktree that used to belong to a repository to a different repository, that is. At that time, names must be made unique among worktrees that belong to the adopting repository, of course, but the names used in the original repository for its worktrees would not matter at that point, I would think. > I might be wrong (hoping I am). The original author should comment on this. Sure. Thanks for commenting.
