Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> 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. 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? Thanks, Jonathan
