Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2011, #06; Sun, 27)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 2, 2011, 05:24 UTC
Message-ID: <7vwrkiccy6.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110301205424.GA18793@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> So I'm curious what you think is missing in the balance you mentioned
> above.

I touched this in a separate message, I think...

Show 7 quoted lines

> A few other things I noticed are:
> ...
>     I am so used to regular git output. But I think just using " %h %s",
>     e.g.:
>
>        1234abcd commit subject one
>        5678defa commit subject two

That would be better, I agree.

Show 8 quoted lines

> ...
>     In other words, I think this safety valve is not just useful for
>     clueless people who make commits without realizing they're on a
>     detached HEAD. It is also useful for clueful people as a helpful
>     reminder that they may be leaving commits behind, and they can
>     ignore or deal with it as appropriate. I tend to ignore the
>     "Previous HEAD was..." message because it shows _every time_,
>     whether those are my new commits or not.

... never thought about this from that angle.  Perhaps you are right.

>   - Nit: you nicely use "%d commit%s" to handle the single/plural case
>     in the warning message, but then you "them" later on. It needs
>     (1 < lost) ? "them" : "it".

I actually don't like playing games like that, especially when i18n topic is in flight. Among the languages I know rules reasonably well, two has the rule that a countable noun is spelled differently depending on the number of that thing is one or more, and one spells the noun the same way regardless of the number. Who knows if git needs to be translated into a language whose noun changes its shape three-way, depending on the number being one, two, or more?