It's a good question, I was just working on a blog post - both because worktrees are very cool and also because I think we have a nice alternative to a similar issue.

With worktrees you can have different branches in different working directories and work on them at the same time. But practically, there is very little difference to just cloning the repo twice and working on different branches in the two checkouts.

The way we're doing it, the branches are both in the same working directory at the same time.

This can have a couple of advantages - one is if you have an annoying bugfix and you need it in order to keep working on your feature, you can have them both applied but you don't have to commit one into the history of the other. You cannot do this with worktrees.

Another is trying out multiple branches together. If they don't conflict, you can essentially get the result of a multi-way merge without creating any merge artifacts. Say you merge three work in progress branches to test them together, then keep working on each independently. Also, in this case, you _know_ that you can merge them in any order and the result will work because you've actually worked on the merged tree.