Subject: Re: Is "bare"ness in the context of multiple worktrees weird? Bitmap error in git gc.

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2023 10:52:16 -0700

"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <[email-masked]> writes:

> But not with “worktree”:
>
>   “ A repository can have zero (i.e. bare repository) or one or more
>     worktrees attached to it. ...
>
> Since this entry claims that “bare repository” and “zero worktrees” are
> equivalent.

I wrote that "(i.e. bare repository)" in 2df5387e (glossary:
describe "worktree", 2022-02-09) but did not mean that way.  

A non-bare repository can reduce the number of its worktrees, but it
cannot go below one, because the directory with working tree files
and the .git/ subdirectory, i.e. its primary worktree, must exist
for it to be a non-bare repository.  Consequently a repository with
zero worktree is by definition a bare repository.

But that does not have to mean all bare repositories can have no
worktrees.