Re: [PATCH] Show branch information in short output of git status

From: Knittl <knittl89@googlemail.com>
Date: May 14, 2010, 06:54 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTilkFHK1UIvSLEstXFIOJTsit02EZe1Wsoj_zRRX@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100512133537.GA28956@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 02:24:41PM +0200, Knittl wrote:
>
>>  - initial commit is also printed when there is tracking information
>> (i still haven't managed to create a situation like that. `git branch
>> oldmaster; rm .git/refs/heads/master; git branch master --set-upstream
>> oldmaster` will reset branch master to oldmaster (a bug?))
>
> Try:
>
>  git branch oldmaster
>  rm .git/refs/heads/master
>  git config branch.master.remote .
>  git config branch.master.merge refs/heads/oldmaster
>
> That being said, I still get "Initial commit on master". I think that
> stat_tracking_branch just gives up if the branch doesn't exist (which
> does make some sense). So in practice, I think your original and this
> one actually behave the same (sorry, I know that changing it was my
> suggestion).
>
> And no, the "--set-upstream" behavior is not a bug. At least not
> according to the documentation. ;)

yep, that's what i discovered too—but i don't care if this condition is 3 lines up or down. if stat_tracking_branch decides it will work for initial commits, then this code will do the expected thing

Show 6 quoted lines

>>  - colors to match output of `git branch` (green: current, red: remote)
>>  - output format is copy-pasteable, ahead/behind information is in the
>> same format as in `git branch -v`
>
> I think it's much nicer, though the colors are a bit much for my liking.
> Still, it's configurable, so I don't have to care. :)

i find the numbers quicker to spot when they are a different color from normal text, but if the majority objects i can remove them of course.

Show 8 quoted lines

>>  - branch information is still printed by default, i have to look into
>> commandline option parsing first. i was thinking of `git status -v -b`
>> (as in `git checkout -b` to mean branch)
>
> You may also want to have a configuration option if it is the output you
> prefer all the time (similarly, if you are using "git status -s" all the
> time, you might want a config option to make "git status" do what you
> want).

on my local system i have `alias.st = git status -sb`, so i don't really find a need to make a config option. actually i fall into both groups you described in your first answer: having a quick glance what files were changed and grouping files based on status. so i write both `git st` and `git status` quite often (also with `git stat` my alias for `git diff --stat` to see what changed content-wise)

Show 9 quoted lines

>> ---------8<----------------
>> From 82b4481d38ae0cd62030aeea67160656b7c763e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Daniel Knittl-Frank <knittl89+git@googlemail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:40:54 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] Show branch information in short output of git status
>
> This patch looks OK, but:
>
>  1. I think for the final version you can just squash in part 2/2.

should be no problem. the second patch changed quite a bit, so i thought it is easier to review when i send it as a separate patch. the final patch can be squashed of course

>  2. Your patch has wrapped lines which make it impossible to apply
>     without fixing up manually. This is a common gmail problem.  See
>     the "gmail" section of SubmittingPatches.

ok, browsed through that. i think i will just put my branch into a pasteservice or on a fileserver, unless the email way is *really* preferred—what about email attachments?

cheers, daniel

-- 
typed with http://neo-layout.org
myFtPhp -- visit http://myftphp.sf.net -- v. 0.4.7 released!