From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126CE1F670 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245712AbiBPBzh (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:55:37 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:60208 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235171AbiBPBzg (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:55:36 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA5DEFABD7 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:55:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F77174BFC; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:55:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=PrXdc0N2ZvsHTSb++dCR6rsiscgM+w2/bxwqgw U7aI8=; b=TU1Ulnnyacifj+0g+DCVphgBtwQxr63UOfgcsmxHTTOFx+ivOv/2eL kCrbEzo3tI+VjF0Vr2nDSmYNK6juoSkUjsbjQQoUUjrCxZoNrwHzamIbj2tQs/5i sR1GtUAbB+X8By3pee0i1AliTp3Q80KnM2scK6aZzq1nCU46bOWW0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4206F174BFB; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:55:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.185.212.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1142174BFA; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 20:55:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Derrick Stolee , Git List , Elijah Newren , =?utf-8?Q?Jean-No=C3=ABl?= AVILA Subject: Re: ds/sparse-checkout-requires-per-worktree-config (was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2022, #02; Wed, 9)) References: Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:55:21 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:40:35 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 807C1AB4-8ECB-11EC-A1AC-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Sunshine writes: > I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it as a disagreement. In my > review, I only pointed out that this series was introducing some new > instances of inconsistency which some earlier efforts (started by > Michael Haggerty) had eliminated. As mentioned in [2], I personally > prefer the term "worktree". These two words mean different things, so I am not sure there is much room for personal preference. If what a documentation refers to is the working tree plus its administrative files, referring to the whole as a "worktree" would be more precise and concise. If the discussion is only about the thing above .git/ that the editors and the compilers see, "working tree" is the right term to use.