@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ This edition covers what happened during the months of January and February 2025
26
26
+ [[ PATCH
] worktree: detect from secondary worktree if main worktree is bare
] ( https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected] / )
27
27
28
28
Last November, Olga Pilipenco sent a patch to the mailing list
29
- addressing an issue she encountered while working with multiple
29
+ addressing an issue she had encountered while working with multiple
30
30
[ worktrees] ( https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree ) .
31
31
32
32
Git worktrees allow developers to check out multiple branches from
@@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ This edition covers what happened during the months of January and February 2025
39
39
work.
40
40
41
41
The issue happened when a repository had a main worktree that was
42
- bare with ` core.bare = true ` in ` config.worktree ` . If a new
43
- secondary worktree was created, then from that secondary worktree
42
+ bare with ` core.bare = true ` in ` config.worktree ` . After creation of a new
43
+ secondary worktree, from that secondary worktree's point-of-view
44
44
the main worktree appeared as non-bare. This prevented users from
45
45
checking out or working with the default branch of the main worktree
46
46
(typically "main" or "master") in the secondary worktree.
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ This edition covers what happened during the months of January and February 2025
66
66
67
67
This time Eric Sunshine replied. He acknowledged that this was a
68
68
real problem and noted that it had been documented in a "NEEDSWORK"
69
- comment added in 2019 into the code that mentioned it . He then
69
+ comment added in 2019 to the code which now got patched . He then
70
70
attempted to rewrite the commit message of the patch in a way that
71
71
was "more idiomatic" to the project and that added more details to
72
72
help understand the problem.
@@ -79,8 +79,8 @@ This edition covers what happened during the months of January and February 2025
79
79
` $commondir/config.worktree ` .
80
80
81
81
Eric also suggested removing some parts of Olga's commit message
82
- that talked about other solutions she had considered, or that
83
- repeated in which circumstances the problem appeared. Then there
82
+ that talked about other solutions she had considered, or
83
+ repeated in which circumstances the problem appeared. Finally, there
84
84
were a number of small comments on the code part of the patch.
85
85
86
86
Olga replied to Eric saying that the commit message he proposed was
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ This edition covers what happened during the months of January and February 2025
90
90
Eric replied explaining some technical details and making a few more
91
91
suggestions.
92
92
93
- Junio Hamano, the Git maintainer then replied to Eric thanking him
93
+ Junio Hamano, the Git maintainer, then replied to Eric thanking him
94
94
"for an easy-to-read review" and thanking Olga for working on this
95
95
issue.
96
96
@@ -125,8 +125,8 @@ This edition covers what happened during the months of January and February 2025
125
125
[ version 4
] ( https://lore.kernel.org/git/[email protected] / )
126
126
of her patch which only added that four line long comment.
127
127
128
- The patch was later merged into the 'master' branch, so the next
129
- 2.49 version of Git that should be released in a few weeks will
128
+ The patch was later merged into the 'master' branch, so
129
+ version 2.49 of Git, which should be released in a few weeks, will
130
130
finally resolve a long-standing issue and significantly enhance the
131
131
usability of Git worktrees for developers working with bare
132
132
repositories.
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ outside of our mailing list. Our first interview was [with VonC in edition 106](
153
153
I used to do a lot of embedded systems programming, and a lot of
154
154
internal company education at times (about programming languages,
155
155
various hardware functions and limitations, software tools, and such).
156
- That's what led me to [ answering StackOverflow questions] ( https://stackoverflow.com/users/1256452/torek?tab=summary ) .
156
+ That's what led me to [ answering Stack Overflow questions] ( https://stackoverflow.com/users/1256452/torek?tab=summary ) .
157
157
158
158
* ** What would you name your most important contribution to Git?**
159
159
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ outside of our mailing list. Our first interview was [with VonC in edition 106](
167
167
Here, well, I got roped into explaining Git to a group that was moving
168
168
from Mercurial. I found existing descriptions to be lacking.
169
169
Eventually that particular job went away but the question-answering
170
- persisted, until I got sufficiently annoyed at StackOverflow itself
170
+ persisted, until I got sufficiently annoyed at Stack Overflow itself
171
171
(for various reasons) to take a break that continues to this day.
172
172
173
173
* ** If you could get a team of expert developers to work full time on
0 commit comments