From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:58:40 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] branch: show rebase/bisect info when possible instead of "(no branch)"
Message-ID: <7v1ucx83fz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <vpqpq0hnlb1.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
>> +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
>> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start: existing ".git/BISECT_START" not modified if
>>  	cp .git/BISECT_START saved &&
>>  	test_must_fail git bisect start $HASH4 foo -- &&
>>  	git branch > branch.output &&
>> -	test_i18ngrep "* (no branch)" branch.output > /dev/null &&
>> +	test_i18ngrep "* (bisecting other)" branch.output > /dev/null &&
>
> I'd have spelled it (no branch, bisecting other) to make it clear that
> we're on detached HEAD, and avoid confusing old-timers. But maybe your
> version is enough, I'm not sure.

Yeah, I do not think "bisecting other" alone makes much sense.

What does "other" refer to when you start your bisection at a
detached head?  I personally think "other" has _any_ value in that
message, because "(no branch, bisecting)" gives the same amount of
information, especially because "other" does not say which branch it
refers to at all.