Re: [PATCH 0/2] [RFD] Using gitrevisions :/search style with other operators

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 10, 2010, 23:36 UTC
Message-ID: <7v7hfhb3pl.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <64905EED-F368-4D3F-9D2D-C08D9B460D67@sb.org>

Kevin Ballard <kevin@sb.org> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> On Dec 10, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>>  d414638 Merge branch 'rj/msvc-fix' into pu
>>  ...
>>  1b2ea00 Merge branch 'mg/cvsimport' into pu
>>  c6d41f4 Merge branch 'nd/maint-relative' into pu
>>  81f395e Merge branch 'ab/i18n' into pu
>>  9f5471f Merge branch 'nd/setup' into pu
>>  06f74a4 Merge branch 'yd/dir-rename' into pu
>>  d8a2ec8 Merge branch 'en/object-list-with-pathspec' into pu
>> 
>> After looking at this output, do you really want to say ":nth(2)/nd/"
>> instead of 9f5471f?
>
> Yep. Doing the latter either requires me to swap over to my mouse, copy the sha1,
> and paste in, or requires me to peer at the sha1 and re-type enough characters.
> It's a lot easier to just glance at that list, realize the 2nd one is the one I
> want, and type `git merge :^{nth(2)/nd/}`. It may not necessarily be faster than
> retyping the sha1, but it's a lot less prone to transcription errors.

What you said heavily depends on the way in which I give names to the branches, and also on the fact that "nd/" happens to be not very common prefix at this moment. If the branches were named without nd/ part and still be unique, you would not be arguing for nth(2) at all to begin with.

So it is dubious that your argument is convincing.