From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D9B2095B for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932824AbdCUPuA (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:50:00 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57968 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932794AbdCUPsx (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:48:53 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716F76C8BD; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:48:34 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=GO5sWHGFobcMFBHFpajXIotSLts=; b=wZiTF1 GMulsQxLdCuW8MShTkTTpDXC2lNLS01xxDPNfup/yzonjcEGdKAVWG1szGux5IH/ Mid5xajQC0JUPigNNK520KxfLDumO53NT+dSK19eXyYJSoNA0MYW1v74Bw4Yj1T+ 57Lzv5I13UebWA8qa7nM82I2bU/qDfhXV/R3M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=T2lUY/9ic3FO+IqA6x8Mk+dThBZAlDPC zdkJ7RtJAk/0+uYQoklvSD/wUOjJjS7+UjtiXdMjcfaq9emZTzG+OgFbMCq3ROMf sGv8aYDUgSjXtkvKw7eDRCaKUnOVJQjUbvax7JtvbSApqIC0jStCAhCkTqiym058 gsg4uXK9zSQ= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C436C8BC; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:48:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D23586C850; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:48:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Duy Nguyen Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Stefan Beller , "git\@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/git-worktree: use working tree for trees on the file system References: <20170317222842.GP26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170317225110.13417-1-sbeller@google.com> <20170320185038.GU26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:48:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Duy Nguyen's message of "Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:37:08 +0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D6E5D754-0E4D-11E7-AC9E-97B1B46B9B0B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Duy Nguyen writes: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Stefan Beller writes: >> >>>> While it may be true that you can have bare worktrees; I would question >>>> why anyone wants to do this, as the only thing it provides is an >>>> additional HEAD (plus its reflog). >>> >>> A more plausible situation is you start with a bare one as the >>> primary and used to make local clones to do your work in the world >>> before "git worktree". It would be a natural extension to your >>> workflow to instead create worktrees of of that bare one as the >>> primary worktree with secondaries with working trees. >> >> For what it's worth, this conversation makes me think it was a mistake >> to call this construct a worktree. > > For the record, I am totally confused with Junio's last line, with two > "with"s, "worktree" and "working trees" in the same phrase :D In case this wasn't just a tangential note, what I meant was: - In the old world, you may have had a single bare repository and then made clones, each of which has a working tree (i.e. non-bare clones), and worked inside these clones. - In the "git worktree" world, you can start from that same single bare repository, but instead of cloning it, use "git worktree" to create "worktree"s, each of which has a working tree, and work inside these "worktree"s. and the latter would be a natural extension to the workflow the former wanted to use. >> It's fine for the command to have one name and the documentation to >> use a longer, clearer name to explain it. What should that longer, >> clearer name be? > > No comments from me. I'll let you know that if Eric (or Junio?) didn't > stop me, we would have had $GIT_DIR/repos now instead of > $GIT_DIR/worktrees, just some extra confusion toppings. I forgot about that part of the history, but you are saying you wanted to call these "repos", not "worktrees"? I can see why somebody (or me?) would stop that by fearing "repo" is a bit too confusing with a "repository", in the same way that we are now realizing that "worktree" is too similar to an old synonym we used to call "working tree".