Re: [PATCH re-roll] Do not display 'Switched to a new branch' when the branch existed

From: Knittl <knittl89@googlemail.com>
Date: Aug 24, 2010, 06:50 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTim7DNasVmaBxWBcUGyGBCZq_HXNdq_=4uKRdxE-@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikHbj4zA6Kj0wUp6uQUY3w6cM_z0=Pes1jLLTky@mail.gmail.com>

sorry for the late reply, i hadn't had access to internet for the last week and as it turns i sent my response only to tay

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> The "From " line and so on output by "git format-patch" are for your
>> mailer.  Clarifying From:, Date:, and Subject: lines at the start of
>> your message are allowed, though, and can be useful when forwarding
>> patches from someone else.
>
> Knittl, I wonder how you generated this patch? Were you working on top
> of the "bad" commit?

yes, i branched off of your bad commit (or rather the commit after your bad commit "fix detached head usage") and created the commit with git commit -c HEAD^ to have the same heading and similar wording without opening a second terminal to copy it over. so i accidentally sent the patch with your name as author, which i then fixed with git amend --reset-author

Show 12 quoted lines

>>> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
>>> @@ -536,7 +536,9 @@ static void update_refs_for_switch(struct
>>> checkout_opts *opts,
>>>                                       new->name);
>>>                       else
>>>                               fprintf(stderr, "Switched to%s branch '%s'\n",
>>> -                                     opts->branch_exists ? " and reset" : " a new",
>>> +                                     opts->branch_exists
>>> +                                             ? " and reset"
>>> +                                             : opts->new_branch ? " a new" : "",
>
> Strange - I thought I had this sorted out. Thanks for spotting this.

i tested with next and pu and both tips had the same (confusing) message.

Show 14 quoted lines

>> Maybe it would be clearer to write
>>
>>        opts->new_branch ? " a new"
>>                : opts->branch_exists ? " and reset"
>>                : "",
>>
>> to emphasize that this is a list of condition/result pairs?
>
> We could do with some parentheses - here's my take:
>
>        fprintf(stderr, "Switched to%s branch '%s'\n",
>                (opts->branch_exists ? " and reset" :
>                        (opts->new_branch ? " a new" : "")),
>                new->name);

that's not really for me to decide, but i'm fine with either version

cheers

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