Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> 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".
