From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:13:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: show (rebasing) or (bisecting) instead of (no branch) when possible
Message-ID: <20130129191321.GB18266@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1359461574-24529-1-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com>

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
> ---
>  In the spirit of status' in-progress info. I think showing this is
>  more useful than "(no branch)". I tend to do "git br" more often than
>  "git st" and this catches my eyes.

Very nice idea.  This would also have been a nice way to avoid
confusion when my officemate used bisect for the first time.

Any particular reason the above explanation is after the triple-dash
instead of before it?

[...]
> --- a/builtin/branch.c
> +++ b/builtin/branch.c
> @@ -557,7 +557,15 @@ static void show_detached(struct ref_list *ref_list)
>  
>  	if (head_commit && is_descendant_of(head_commit, ref_list->with_commit)) {
>  		struct ref_item item;
> -		item.name = xstrdup(_("(no branch)"));
> +		struct stat st;
> +		if ((!stat(git_path("rebase-apply"), &st) &&
> +		     stat(git_path("rebase-apply/applying"), &st)) ||
> +		    !stat(git_path("rebase-merge"), &st))

Here's a straight translation of contrib/completion/prompt.sh for
comparison, skipping the cases that don't involve automatically
detaching HEAD:

	if (!stat(git_path("rebase-merge"), &st) && S_ISDIR(st.st_mode))
		item.name = xstrdup(_("(rebasing)"));
	else if (!access(git_path("rebase-apply/rebasing"), F_OK))
		item.name = xstrdup(_("(rebasing)"));
	else if (!access(git_path("BISECT_LOG"), F_OK))
		item.name = xstrdup(_("(bisecting)"));
	else
		item.name = xstrdup(_("(no branch)"));

That would mean:

 * using access() instead of stat() to avoid unnecessary work
 * relying on rebase--am to write .git/rebase-apply/rebasing when
   appropriate instead of guessing

Not important, though. :)

Jonathan