Junio C Hamano wrote: > Theoretically we should be able to make modules/kernel%2fv2.[24] > additional "worktree"s of modules/kernel%2fv2.6, but given that > these are all "bare" repositories without an attached working tree, > I am not sure how that would supposed to work. Thinking about > having multiple worktrees on a single bare repository makes me head > spin and ache X-<;-)
Agreed about spinning head. This is why I suggested at [1] that anyone intereseted in this start with description of their proposed design, which would have three benefits: - after implementation, it would document the intent behind whatever we choose to do, hopefully saving people debugging or improving this code some head spinning - it would allow subject matter experts on-list to suggest refinements and simplifications - it would avoid the interested contributor going too far down a blind alley in case their initial proposal has a fatal flaw I also agree with the "theoretically we should be able to make it work". As described in [1], I think most of this is work we're going to have to do eventually, as part of properly supporting multiple worktrees for a superproject. But I don't want to set wrong expectations: this will be hard. Thanks, Jonathan [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20180814231049.gh142...@aiede.svl.corp.google.com/
