From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:55:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote.c: use shorten_unambiguous_ref
Message-ID: <49E487B2.5030606@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090410171458.GA26478@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 10.04.2009 19:14:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 05:33:02PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
>> Use the new shorten_unambiguous_ref() for simplifying the output of
>> upstream branch names. This affects status and checkout.
> 
> Yeah, this is the spot I was thinking about when I mentioned "use it in
> other places" earlier in the thread. So
> 
> Acked-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> 
>> I haven't seen more obvious place for using shorten_unambiguous_ref().
>> prettify_ref() is a natural candidate but is mostly used for
>> prettyfying refs on the remote side. git branch is covered by Jeff's
>> patch already.
> 
> Hmm. I was thinking we might be able to just do away with prettify_ref,
> but I didn't consider the fact that we need to prettify remote things. I
> think you could still unambiguously prettify the local half of those
> callsites, though.
> 
> Given that the two functions are closely related, should we perhaps
> rename them to
> 
>   const char *shorten_ref(const char *);
>   const char *shorten_ref_unambiguous(const char *);
> 
> ? The implementations are quite different, with prettify_ref not really
> respecting the ref lookup rules, but rather just considering a few
> pre-determined bits of the hierarchy as uninteresting. It shouldn't be
> that hard to have them both use the same implementation, like:
> 
>   const char *shorten_ref(const char *, int unambiguous);
> 
> -Peff

Should I rebase this on top of Bert's newer patch (which has the
signature you suggest)? Currently I don't see any of them in.

Michael