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 9297C20958 for ; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:39:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755905AbdCTTiG (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:38:06 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:54992 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755696AbdCTTh4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:37:56 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31E27C117; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:37:11 -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=nf5l3cYqH6uslPHaRHLcwn+c3eo=; b=Ape4eB i09yNxbJxJUP4ZnCPcaJTXomdPj88DNM1v0uaZzfDLHdQ+i3Gc5Vd0S+tkcEuzYW x63cZdczujcx2E/hE2q1lufB02PCtKkYnR330k/GC1H7Fnzq5evyrnqhVxvi1HNg C82ARuWmi43/41yh8dG+ZoNJJLGuVZzgc5OZE= 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=Xu0QLo9FnZemfRuTGXefzWDISZaPbnec YFKOv2BhIyh+x47KHJjUTrbxp2s+PWui7ALxfzZ+Cpoeaa6SGgyA3CvInv+hJX12 HoPS3fTqOl69NkKE/K9PNXauOSpisDmS+0AayjkFzpJrsT6KchJo3HVGJzPlUjfm 0+WXt8GcWLQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9777C116; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:37:11 -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-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 265B47C115; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:37:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: jrnieder@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, pclouds@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] use "working trees" instead of "worktree" in our API References: <20170320185038.GU26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170320192225.18928-1-sbeller@google.com> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:37:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170320192225.18928-1-sbeller@google.com> (Stefan Beller's message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:22:23 -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: 9CA1BED6-0DA4-11E7-97A8-FC50AE2156B6-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: >> For what it's worth, this conversation makes me think it was a mistake >> to call this construct a worktree. > > So the way forward is to purge the use of "worktree" meaning actual working trees? GIT_WORK_TREE environment would have be a victim of this clean-up, so is setup_work_tree(), together with numerous in-code comment about "work tree". While I would say that we would certainly pick one and stick to it if we were inventing Git from scratch today and just started caring the distinction between core.bare and not, I am not sure how far we would want to go, and what's the expected payoff of doing this clean-up would be, given that we are starting from today's world. So, I dunno. If the response and list concensus to Jonathan's earlier comment came up with a better name for the newer "worktree" concept, we may not have to even worry about this and instead can just declare "these are used interchangeably".