Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Towards a useable git-branch

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 4, 2013, 13:11 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8BpeP0y+wFbNJioR-TwyV1P77moz0x2ZDXzqz2ZKWTahg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0kGrCDhDFL5THBTTVARTnfY2xucbJaGJGKj8OYv3Q1pBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> Nobody should ever parse these output
>> with scripts. The color can be generated from color.branch.*.
>
> How do we implement color.branch.(current|local|remote|plain)?  In the
> current code, we take a crude approach by hand-constructing argc, argv
> strings and passing it to cmd_for_each_ref().  There are no
> conditionals in the format syntax (and introducing one is probably not
> a good idea either): so, I'm guessing these configuration variables
> have to be read by for-each-ref?

Maybe. I don't really like the idea that for-each-ref reads _branch_ config. We could introduce the same set of keys but in color.for-each-ref namespace. %C(auto) will take care of the logic and choose the correct color key. When we replace branch's listing code with for-each-ref, I think we could somehow override for-each-ref keys with branch ones in-core. Too hacky?

Show 5 quoted lines

>> A bigger
>> problem is show_detached(), --[no-]merged, --with and --contains. We
>> need to move some of those code over to for-each-ref.
>
> I saw that you fixed this.

Nope. --[no-]merged and --contains seem easy. show_detached is still WIP, mostly because detached HEAD may or may not show when you provide a pattern to git-branch (e.g. git branch --list 'foo*') and because HEAD is always the first item, regardless of sorting order. get_head_description also seems more porcelain-ish than a plumbing feature..

Show 5 quoted lines

>> Another problem
>> is the new "branch -v" seems to less responsive than old "branch -v"
>> because (I think) of sorting, even if we don't need it.
>
> Does your track-responsiveness patch fix this?

Yes.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> I checked out
>> your branch, made some more updates and pushed out to my
>> for-each-ref-pretty again. Changes are:
>
> *pants* Sorry, I'm finding it hard to keep up.

Sorry that branch was in a better shape the day I sent my previous email. Then I kind of used it as a playground with --[no-]merged, --contains and stuff :-P -- Duy