Re: [PATCH v7 0/3]

From: Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 1, 2019, 23:31 UTC
Message-ID: <CAC05386CRvmLUbG+O89=i9oXsOSPsoP3VpnrR-w1HJhMa6U7AA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwomjw25s.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:54 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>
>
> As you can see in "git shortlog --no-merges", later two patches
> would look quite out of place by having overlong title and starting
> the description(i.e. after "<area>: ") in a capital letter.

Hadn't looked at it that way. OK, will shorten/uncapitalize.

>
> It is still not clear why we would want 2/3, even though I think 3/3
> is a good idea.
>

It's interesting to me that you like 3/3 but not 2/3 :)

My apologies for restating the commit message, but the point of 2/3 is to communicate to the user that highlighted/marked branches will behave differently from unhighlighted/unmarked branches for commands to check out or delete. I think this is useful since it gives the user actionable information ahead of time, as opposed to providing that information upon failure of checkout/delete. It also makes sense since 'git branch' is already highlighting the current branch, i.e. this is just an extension of that idea.

As we've stated earlier in this thread, 1/3 allows for users to implement this on their own with a custom git branch format. Personally I think there's value in making it default, since it's adding information in a minimally intrusive way. I do believe that merely adding information isn't a good enough reason to change things, as information overload is a real thing, but in this case the output isn't changed for anyone not using a worktree (same goes for 3/3), and for someone using a worktree this provides useful and actionable information, IMO.

Does that change your mind at all?