{"thread":{"id":"7806","subject":"git todo-list ?","startedAt":"2007-04-23T22:44:08Z","lastAt":"2007-04-24T20:05:31Z","messageCount":13,"participants":["Yakov Lerner","Junio C Hamano","Jakub Narebski","Andy Parkins","Johannes Schindelin","Daniel Barkalow"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"40251","messageId":"f36b08ee0704231544r53d1bfbej7ddee0c66d894f3c@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"git todo-list ?","fromName":"Yakov Lerner","fromEmail":"iler.ml@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-04-23T22:44:08Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-23T22:44:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"iler.ml@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> In earlier days, people\n> complained about lack of features and existence of misfeatures,\n> and bashed the maintainer with patches. These days, the bashing\n> is done with more words and less patches.\n\nI wonder if git has a \"git-todo\" page somewhere, either in its docs,\non on web somewhere.\n\nThe reason I ask about \"git-todo\" is becase I contributed couple of\npatches to vim in the past, and that's because vim has the todo-page\n(vim->:help todo).\nSo when I had free cycles, I looked into vim-todo, picked an item that I\ncould do, wrote a pacth, and sent it in. (Only the main maintainer of vim\nputs things into todo list).\n\nIn the earlier days, omissions were seen on surface. Now that git\nmatured, things to add or fix are not obvious. The todo doc is great place\nto have requested-fixes/wishes recorded. That's because those people who\nhit the problems do not necessarily have time/desire to fix them, and someone\nwho has free cycles to write code might not hit himself the problem\nthat others hit.\n\nAnother usefulness [of todo doc] is that it allows to clearly label\n'not implemented yet, but it is in the todo' things (for example --\nability to keep empty dirs in the tree).\n\nThe todo list works by giving directions to those who have time to\nwrite patches.\n\nDoes git have todo-list ?\n\nYakov\n"},{"id":"40252","messageId":"7vlkgid7x4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"f36b08ee0704231544r53d1bfbej7ddee0c66d894f3c@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2007-04-23T22:48:07Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-23T22:48:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"Yakov Lerner\" writes:\n\n> Does git have todo-list ?\n\nWe could start with one with an entry:\n\n\t- create a initial set of to-do-list and find a\n volunteer to maintain it.\n\nperhaps at wiki.or.cz/\n"},{"id":"40265","messageId":"f0ji79$l6p$1@sea.gmane.org","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"7vlkgid7x4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-04-24T00:19:42Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T00:19:42Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> \"Yakov Lerner\" writes:\n> \n>> Does git have todo-list ?\n> \n> We could start with one with an entry:\n> \n> - create a initial set of to-do-list and find a\n> volunteer to maintain it.\n> \n> perhaps at wiki.or.cz/\n\nThere is both ToDo and Wishlist pages on Git Wiki:\n http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/ToDo\n http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/Wishlist\n \nThere exists TODO file in todo branch of git.git repository:\n http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=tree;hb=todo\n http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob;hb=todo;f=TODO\n\nAnd of course \"Getting Involved\" section on FrontPage of Git Wiki.\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nWarsaw, Poland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"},{"id":"40274","messageId":"7vslaqbnhq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"7vlkgid7x4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2007-04-24T00:54:41Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T00:54:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano writes:\n\n> \"Yakov Lerner\" writes:\n>\n>> Does git have todo-list ?\n>\n> We could start one with an entry:\n>\n> \t- create a initial set of to-do-list and find a\n> volunteer to maintain it.\n>\n> perhaps at wiki.or.cz/\n\nArrgh. The url is http://git.or.cz/gitwiki\n\nBy the way, I see on that wiki that somebody attempted to have a\nlist of Wishlist (http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/Wishlist). I think\nmany of them are now irrelevant, or stale, or have been\nrejected. It even includes tongue-in-cheek suggestions made as\ncounterarguments as if they are serious proposals. I just have\ndone a minimum clean-up but many of them that I did not touch\nare not necessarily there because I agree they are good\nsuggestions, but because I did not understand what they are\ntalking about.\n\nAs with any \"tracking\" list, wanting to have one and starting is\nthe easy part. Unless kept up to date, such a list becomes\nquickly useless, or even worse than not having one, leading to\nwasted wild goose chase if people look at it without knowing how\nstale it is.\n\nAnd keeping any such list up-to-date takes a lot of effort.\nAnybody who attempts it needs to have a lot of time and enough\nknowledge to sift through both the list traffic to note not just\nthe initial issue-raising, but how the issues have been resolved\n(or unresolved). I sometimes do that and send out \"Unresolved\nissues\" message to the list myself every once in a while, but as\nthe maintainer my attention tends to be more on the big-picture\nissues and not minor details, and I do not think there are any\nunresolved issue at the big-picture level that I haven't talked\nabout in recent \"What's in / What's cooking\" messages.\n"},{"id":"40304","messageId":"200704240823.00515.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"7vslaqbnhq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-04-24T07:22:59Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T07:22:59Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tuesday 2007 April 24 01:54, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> By the way, I see on that wiki that somebody attempted to have a\n> list of Wishlist (http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/Wishlist). I think\n\nI get the blame for that. I think I originally added it, and then you made \nexactly the point you make below about it being an unreliable method for \nkeeping track of outstanding items and I found I couldn't disagree.\n\nMy own recommendation for this page - or in fact any similar list - is don't \nbother - let's delete it or replace it with a link to Junio's email.\n\nThe way to get new features into git seems to be either\n a. Do it yourself\n b. Mention it (but not excessively) on the mailing list, if one of the guru's\n is interested enough to do it (their choice not yours), then you're in. \n Otherwise - see (a).\n\n> many of them are now irrelevant, or stale, or have been\n> rejected. It even includes tongue-in-cheek suggestions made as\n> counterarguments as if they are serious proposals. I just have\n\nI thought I'd included only serious suggestions. Perhaps my humour-detector \nwas a bit faulty that day.\n\n\nAndy\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET\nandyparkins@gmail.com\n"},{"id":"40317","messageId":"7virbm6ozi.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"200704240823.00515.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2007-04-24T10:33:37Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T10:33:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Andy Parkins writes:\n\n> My own recommendation for this page - or in fact any similar list - is don't \n> bother - let's delete it or replace it with a link to Junio's email.\n\nI wouldn't dismiss it that fast. Replacing it with a notice\nthat says the community is looking for a volunteer (or group of\nvolunteers) who is willing to invest the time and effort to keep\nit up to date would be very good, though.\n\nI miss \"kernel traffic\" and its cousen \"git traffic\" (which we\nsaw only the first issue of, unfortunately). FWIW, until very\nrecently, your \"niggles\" list $gmane/34244 was still kept in my\nbox as 'ticked'. I recently unticked it as many of the issues\nthere have been resolved and some have been made irrelevant.\n\nIf somebody sent such a list (maybe starting with only his own\n\"niggles\" list) and posted it to the list bi-weekly (with a good\nmaintenance -- removing stale items from such a list is often\nmuch more important than adding newly raised issues to keep it\nuseful), that would be a great contribution to the community.\nInterested people could even take turns to be the list editor.\n\n> The way to get new features into git seems to be either\n> a. Do it yourself\n> b. Mention it (but not excessively) on the mailing list, if one of the guru's\n> is interested enough to do it (their choice not yours), then you're in. \n> Otherwise - see (a).\n\nI would say that is true for almost any project in the free\nsoftware world. Also I would not state b. with word \"guru\".\nYou either do it yourself, or find people who can, and tempt\nthem do it for you. And \"people who can\" do not have to be\nnecessarily gurus.\n\nA good strategy to do b. is to demonstrate the need in concrete\nterms; post your attempt at the problem, even though it may not\nbe elegant or inclusion quality, and explain what you are trying\nto achieve. Code, sample output, or even imaginary transcript\nis worth thousands words to explain what you are trying to do.\nThen, describe how much your attempt solves and what you find\nlacking in it (iow what more is needed in the output from your\nfailed attempt to make you happy).\n\nThis has three possible outcome. (1) Somebody might do it; (2)\nSomebody might do it better than you imagined possible; (3)\nSomebody might explain why it is a bad approach to do the way\nyou described, make you realize that what you initially thought\nwas \"the need\" was merely one possible approach (and not optimal\none) to solve a higher level problem you were ultimately trying\nto solve, and teach you a better way to solve that problem.\n\nOn the other hand, a poor strategy is to say things like these:\n\n - Other system X does it.\n\n (If you are content with system X, we are happy. We won't\n force you to use git and suffer from the lack of that\n feature.)\n\n - You would want more users, wouldn't you?\n\n (Not necessarily. World domination might happen as a side\n effect of being the best system in the field, but it is not\n our goal by itself.)\n\n - Our project cannot use git unless you have this and that.\n\n (Tough.) \n\nwithout saying \"if we had this, git can be more useful in such\nand such scenario, and it is applicable not only this situation\nbut here and there.\"\n"},{"id":"40319","messageId":"200704241210.31378.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"7virbm6ozi.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-04-24T11:10:23Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T11:10:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tuesday 2007 April 24, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> I miss \"kernel traffic\" and its cousen \"git traffic\" (which we\n> saw only the first issue of, unfortunately). FWIW, until very\n> recently, your \"niggles\" list $gmane/34244 was still kept in my\n> box as 'ticked'. I recently unticked it as many of the issues\n> there have been resolved and some have been made irrelevant.\n\nWow - I feel useful now :-) my current \"niggles\" list is so small that it's \nnot worth writing down - is git approaching perfection?\n\nCoincidentally, I was reading through my git-versus-svn post, and found that \nsimilarly an awful lot of the issues for git had gone away. I found it \nremarkable that it had happened so fast.\n\nIt actually makes it harder for a potential reporter to keep up - git moves \nforward so quickly, that if you blink you've missed five new features going \nin.\n\n\n\nAndy\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET\nandyparkins@gmail.com\n"},{"id":"40332","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704241653260.6954@racer.site","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"200704241210.31378.andyparkins@gmail.com","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-04-24T14:54:12Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T14:54:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Andy Parkins wrote:\n\n> On Tuesday 2007 April 24, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> > I miss \"kernel traffic\" and its cousen \"git traffic\" (which we\n> > saw only the first issue of, unfortunately). FWIW, until very\n> > recently, your \"niggles\" list $gmane/34244 was still kept in my\n> > box as 'ticked'. I recently unticked it as many of the issues\n> > there have been resolved and some have been made irrelevant.\n> \n> Wow - I feel useful now :-) my current \"niggles\" list is so small that it's \n> not worth writing down - is git approaching perfection?\n> \n> Coincidentally, I was reading through my git-versus-svn post, and found that \n> similarly an awful lot of the issues for git had gone away. I found it \n> remarkable that it had happened so fast.\n\nWow. Now that's a wow, isn't it?\n\nCould you post what is left on your list? And maybe - just for my personal \namusement - the ticked-off list?\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"40334","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704241700470.6954@racer.site","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"7vslaqbnhq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-04-24T15:02:19Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T15:02:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> As with any \"tracking\" list, wanting to have one and starting is the \n> easy part. Unless kept up to date, such a list becomes quickly useless, \n> or even worse than not having one, leading to wasted wild goose chase if \n> people look at it without knowing how stale it is.\n\nI used to issue `git log -p todo -- TODO` quite a lot; thank you!\n\nAnd I miss kernel and git cousins, too...\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"40350","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704241312210.28708@iabervon.org","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704241700470.6954@racer.site","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Daniel Barkalow","fromEmail":"barkalow@iabervon.org","sentAt":"2007-04-24T17:21:17Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T17:21:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"barkalow@iabervon.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/55364219?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> Hi,\n> \n> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> \n> > As with any \"tracking\" list, wanting to have one and starting is the \n> > easy part. Unless kept up to date, such a list becomes quickly useless, \n> > or even worse than not having one, leading to wasted wild goose chase if \n> > people look at it without knowing how stale it is.\n> \n> I used to issue `git log -p todo -- TODO` quite a lot; thank you!\n> \n> And I miss kernel and git cousins, too...\n\nWhy not have the TODO list in the source branches, listing features that \nought to be in that version but aren't? That way, people can submit \nfeature requests as patches that add to the todo list (and the requested \nfeature can be discussed in response), and patches that implement features \ncan simultaneously remove them from the todo list. Anyone considering \nworking on adding desired features would need an up-to-date repository \nanyway.\n\n\t-Daniel\n*This .sig left intentionally blank*\n"},{"id":"40361","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704242028350.6954@racer.site","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704241312210.28708@iabervon.org","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-04-24T18:29:41Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T18:29:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote:\n\n> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> > Hi,\n> > \n> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> > \n> > > As with any \"tracking\" list, wanting to have one and starting is the \n> > > easy part. Unless kept up to date, such a list becomes quickly useless, \n> > > or even worse than not having one, leading to wasted wild goose chase if \n> > > people look at it without knowing how stale it is.\n> > \n> > I used to issue `git log -p todo -- TODO` quite a lot; thank you!\n> > \n> > And I miss kernel and git cousins, too...\n> \n> Why not have the TODO list in the source branches, listing features that \n> ought to be in that version but aren't? That way, people can submit \n> feature requests as patches that add to the todo list (and the requested \n> feature can be discussed in response), and patches that implement \n> features can simultaneously remove them from the todo list. Anyone \n> considering working on adding desired features would need an up-to-date \n> repository anyway.\n\nLike Junio said, it is not starting it, but maintaining. (BTW Andy, I am \nstill waiting for that list...)\n\nJudging from my own failings in updating the documentation when doing \npatches, I have no doubt I would miss out on the TODO, too.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"40363","messageId":"200704242024.28010.andyparkins@gmail.com","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704242028350.6954@racer.site","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Andy Parkins","fromEmail":"andyparkins@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-04-24T19:24:22Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T19:24:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"andyparkins@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Tuesday 2007, April 24, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n\n> Like Junio said, it is not starting it, but maintaining. (BTW Andy, I\n> am still waiting for that list...)\n\nAsk and ye shall receive. I had to make it look pretty first didn't I?\nCouldn't just send you any old rubbish.\n\nThe only remaining things are hardly worth worrying about or weren't accepted\nany way.\n\nEnjoy.\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\nADP niggle list\n===============\n\n * git-revert should be called git-invert. It doesn't remove a change\n from history, it simply applies another commit that does the\n opposite of whatever commit you are \"revert\"ing. That's an inversion.\n * git-branch is not verbose enough when creating a new branch, for a new user\n a little reassurance that what they meant to happen has happened would be\n nice.\n * git-fetch output is confusing:\n remote: Generating pack...\n remote: Done counting 189146 objects.\n remote: Result has 186566 objects.\n remote: Deltifying 186566 objects.\n remote: 100% (186566/186566) done\n Unpacking 186566 objects\n 24% (44792/186566) done\n Some questions from the point of view of a newbie: what is a pack? what is\n an object? Why is the remote counting them? Which remote am I reading\n from? What am I fetching? What is \"Deltifying\"? How much data do I have\n to download (number of objects doesn't tell me). How long has this taken?\n How long is left to go?\n * Similar things can be said about git-clone\n * Similar things can be said about git-push\n * git-show-branch output is cryptic.\n\n\nNot accepted by list\n--------------------\n\n * git-apply output is horrible. It says a few things about whitespace on\n stdin then just finishes. When it succeeds. When it fails, it just says\n failed, it doesn't say why a particular hunk failed.\n * git-rebase/git-cherry-pick/git-reset/etc should all tell the user that they\n need to run git-prune to tidy up after themselves.\n * git-add has no output, whether it works or not\n * git-cat-file is badly named. git-cat-object would be slightly\n better.\n * In general the principle for messages should be the same as for\n presentations:\n - say what you're going to do\n - do it\n - say what you did\n So for example, \"git-branch newbranch existingbranch\" would say\n Branching at \"existingbranch\", hash XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX\n - created branch \"newbranch\"\n - your working branch is \"existingbranch\"\n Rather than the nothing that it currently outputs.\n\n\nAccepted but unimplemented\n--------------------------\n\n * git-rebase --skip requires that the offending file be clean with\n git-checkout HEAD file\n before the skip will work. Why? The fact of the skip is enough\n knowledge for rebase to know that I don't care if the merge is lost\n\n\nFixed\n-----\n\n * Apart from a little convenience of being able to add trees, I'm not\n really sure that git-add is different from git-update-index --add\n\n git-add is now more powerful and can replace update-index\n\n * We should never have to see git-update-index; instead git-rm, git-mv\n and git-add would take its place. git-add would get new functionality\n where it can be used on already tracked files and hence would be renamed\n to, say git-prepare.\n\n git-add is now more powerful and can replace update-index.\n\n * git-fetch has to be in working root. If I can do git-push from anywhere in\n my tree, why can't I do git-fetch?\n\n * git-reset has to be in working root. If you typically sit in, say \"src/\",\n it's annoying to have to change directory to do a reset.\n\n * git-verify-tag would be nicer as a switch to git-tag\n\n * git-commit doesn't (generally) have output - after a commit, it's difficult\n to know if anything happened. Get users used to the idea of hashes to\n identify commits by telling them which one they just made. Tell them if\n they made a branch as well, which branch they are now on.\n\n * git-init-db says \"defaulting to local storage area\", as if that is\n meant to be a helpful message.\n\n * git-commit without \"-a\" and without an \"update-index\" says \"nothing\n to commit\", which isn't an adequate message to help a user who hasn't\n realised they need to update the index\n\n * git-merge output is horrible - this affects git-pull, git-rebase,\n and git-cherry-pick. Issuing \"fatal\" errors and then carrying on is very\n confusing. Errors in merges appear multiple times. The files upon which\n which there is a conflict are spread throughout the output. Most of the\n output is not relevant to an average user.\n\n * It would be really nice to be able to do an arbitrary checkout, rather than\n having to make a branch for it. Then I could do\n git-checkout remotes/origin/master && make\n (obviously committing with a non-branch HEAD would be prevented).\n I think this is going to be a pre-requisite for submodule support\n\n\n\n\n\n-- \nDr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET\nandyparkins@gmail.com\n"},{"id":"40365","messageId":"7vps5t5yic.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"7806","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0704241700470.6954@racer.site","subject":"Re: git todo-list ?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2007-04-24T20:05:31Z","receivedAt":"2007-04-24T20:05:31Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Johannes Schindelin writes:\n\n> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n>> As with any \"tracking\" list, wanting to have one and starting is the \n>> easy part. Unless kept up to date, such a list becomes quickly useless, \n>> or even worse than not having one, leading to wasted wild goose chase if \n>> people look at it without knowing how stale it is.\n>\n> I used to issue `git log -p todo -- TODO` quite a lot; thank you!\n\nI took another look of my todo:TODO list, and realized that\nactually it is not too bad.\n\nI pushed out an update with recent items.\n"}]}