On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Duy Nguyen venit, vidit, dixit 25.03.2017 13:07:
>> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Michael J Gruber writes:
>>>
Are we at a point where we can still rename the new feature at least? If
yes, and keepi
Duy Nguyen venit, vidit, dixit 25.03.2017 13:07:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Michael J Gruber writes:
>>
>>> Are we at a point where we can still rename the new feature at least? If
>>> yes, and keeping everything else is mandatory, than "workspace" or
>>> "workin
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael J Gruber writes:
>
>> Are we at a point where we can still rename the new feature at least? If
>> yes, and keeping everything else is mandatory, than "workspace" or
>> "working space" may be a serious contender for naming the new t
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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
Michael J Gruber writes:
> Are we at a point where we can still rename the new feature at least? If
> yes, and keeping everything else is mandatory, than "workspace" or
> "working space" may be a serious contender for naming the new thing.
I do not have a good answer to the first question, but w
Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 21.03.2017 16:48:
> 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
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 H
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).
>>
>>
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
> p
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 cl
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Stefan Beller writes:
>
>> -List details of each worktree. The main worktree is listed first, followed
>> by
>> -each of the linked worktrees. The output details include if the worktree is
>> -bare, the revision currently checked out, an
Stefan Beller writes:
>> Unfortunately gitglossary(7) doesn't make this clear at all --- it
>> uses the term worktree a few times (and appears to mean "working tree"
>> when it does --- e.g.
>>
>> Pathspecs are used on the command line of [...] and many other
>> commands to limit
Stefan Beller writes:
> -List details of each worktree. The main worktree is listed first, followed
> by
> -each of the linked worktrees. The output details include if the worktree is
> -bare, the revision currently checked out, and the branch currently checked
> out
> -(or 'detached HEAD' if
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> I'm not sure I agree with this distinction. "worktree" is just a
> short name for "working tree".
That is probably primarily my fault. Loong before the "git
worktree" that is meant to replace the "workdir" thing in contrib/
was invented, some people said "work
Hi,
Stefan Beller wrote:
> If I recall correctly, "worktree" is the feature/command, and
> "working tree" is an instance in the file system, even when you only
> have one working tree.
I'm not sure I agree with this distinction. "worktree" is just a
short name for "working tree".
Unfortunately
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> If I recall correctly, "worktree" is the feature/command, and
>> "working tree" is an instance in the file system, even when you only
>> have one working tree.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this distinction
If I recall correctly, "worktree" is the feature/command, and
"working tree" is an instance in the file system, even when you only
have one working tree.
Using that mental model, the documentation for 'git worktree list'
clearly talks about working trees, so fix it.
Reflow the lines as well.
Sig
17 matches
Mail list logo
