Re: Is "bare"ness in the context of multiple worktrees weird? Bitmap error in git gc.

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Tao Klerks [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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