Re: [RFD] Git glossary: 'branch' and 'head' description
- From
Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
- Date
- May 21, 2006, 01:01 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20060521010129.GB7179@spearce.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605191853570.10823@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> > On Fri, 19 May 2006, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > > I guess I did forget that it sticks around. So you have to be doing > > something somewhat more complicated, like fetching the latest versions of > > multiple topic branches. > > I actually don't think it's at all unlikely that I'd start using this.
Hey, if its useful. :-) If its not then I'm doing something wrong here... [snip]
Show 9 quoted lines
> I'm not entirely sure about the syntax, though. It ends up being pretty
> command-line-unfriendly. The "gitk ORIG_HEAD.." thing is fairly easy to
> type, but typing
>
> gitk 'master@{2 hours ago}'..
>
> on a Finnish keyboard (yeah, that's what I still use) is "interesting",
> since all of '@', '{' and '}' are complex characters (AltGr + '2', AltGr +
> '7' and AltGr + '0' respectively), and you have to remember the quoting.Wow. So what you are saying is writing any sort of C code must be rather painful. :-)
I received a suggestion of using ' (single quote) rather than { as the quoting character. I didn't make the quoting character optional as I realized users were likely to forget they needed it on date specs which contain ':', so I just made them required to keep things consistent at all times. Further {} won out over '' as {} is also used with the ^ operator (e.g. v1.3.3^{tree}).
Show 5 quoted lines
> Not that I see any obvious better syntax. Although allowing a shorthand > like "@2.hours.ago" for "current branch, at given date" might help a > bit, at least that wouldn't need quoting: > > gitk @2.hours.ago..
The empty prefix for `HEAD` is simple. The '.' part would need to be fixed in approxidate() (and thus --since would also benefit). Omitting the {} might be OK but see above...
-- Shawn.