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

[Sergey Organov <sorganov@gmail.com>]

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <code@khaugsbakk.name> writes:


[...]

> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] Try to reword what a worktree is
>
> ---
>  Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> index 5a537268e2..5e192fb5dc 100644
> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> @@ -694,10 +694,14 @@ 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
> +	A repository can have zero 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).
> ++
> +Note that the directory tree of a <<def_bare_repository,bare_repository>>
> +may have linked worktrees, but cannot itself be a worktree since it has no
> +working tree.

Reading this with a fresh eye, I wonder if we'd better distinguish
between "inline" worktree and "attached" worktrees?

As I see it, in fact a repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository)
or one inline worktree, as well as zero or more attached worktrees.

-- 
Sergey Organov