From: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:53:27 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] fetch: reduce duplicate in ref update status lines
Message-ID: <575199E7.7000503@xiplink.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160603110843.15434-4-pclouds@gmail.com>

On 2016-06-03 07:08 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> When there are lots of ref updates, each has different name length, this
> will make it easier to look because the variable part is at the end.

s/look/read/

For the record, I prefer the earlier stair-step format to this
	{xxx -> yyy}/foo
stuff.

Peff suggested that a two-pass approach might not be too bad, but had 
problems when he tried it with extra-long refs.  Maybe those problems 
could be dealt with, and we could get a simple, aligned output?

What if we detect when the full line exceeds the terminal width, and 
insert a newline after the remote ref and indent the ->  to the same 
offset as its surrounding lines, like this:

  * [new branch]      2nd-index -> pclouds/2nd-index
  * [new branch]      some-kind-of-long-ref-name
                                -> pclouds/some-kind-of-long-ref-name
  * [new branch]      3nd-index -> pclouds/3nd-index

> ---
>   Documentation/git-fetch.txt |  7 +++++++
>   builtin/fetch.c             | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   t/t5510-fetch.sh            |  4 ++--
>   t/t5526-fetch-submodules.sh | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
>   4 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
> index 18e733c..61c3bd1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-fetch.txt
> @@ -113,6 +113,13 @@ representing the status of a single ref. Each line is of the form:
>    <flag> <summary> <from> -> <to> (<reason>)
>   -------------------------------
>
> +When `from` and `to` share a common suffix, the line could be
> +displayed in the form:
> +
> +-------------------------------
> + <flag> <summary> {<from> -> <to>}<suffix> (<reason>)

If we go with this format, we'll need to document <suffix>.  I'm not 
sure how to describe it succinctly, especially since it's not always 
used.  Really there are two possible output formats:

	<flag> <summary> {<from> -> <to>}<suffix> (<reason>)
	<flag> <summary> <from> -> <to> (<reason>)

This is starting to feel too complex.

		M.