Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-worktree: use working tree for trees on the file system

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Michael J Gruber [off-list ref] wrote:

Duy Nguyen venit, vidit, dixit 25.03.2017 13:07:

quoted

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Michael J Gruber [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Are we at a point where we can still rename the new feature at least? If
yes, and keeping everything else is mandatory, than "workspace" or
"working space" may be a serious contender for naming the new thing.

I do not have a good answer to the first question, but workspace
does sound like a good name for what this feature is trying to
achieve.

Now is not too late to rename the command from worktree to workspace
(and keep "worktree" as an alias that will be eventually deleted).
Should we do it? I would keep file names, function names... unchanged
though, not worth the amount of new conflicts.

I guess I would go for a full change. Our technical documentation often
merely consists of the source code, so we should reduce potential
confusion there, too.

Michael

Yes, changing the command name but not all the code would cause more
confusion in the long run.

However, personally I never confused "worktree" and "working trees"
myself. I fee like they are related concepts anyways, in that a fresh
clone has one worktree which its its working tree. Renaming it all to
workspace doesn't bother me either.

Thanks,
Jake