From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:14:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] branch: show rebase/bisect info when possible instead of "(no branch)"
Message-ID: <CACsJy8CGqiahw3y42KRt61gChtfOucFHqZqn_uvLrj7j7KrQbg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpqpq0hnlb1.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Matthieu Moy
<Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
>> +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
>> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start: existing ".git/BISECT_START" not modified if
>>       cp .git/BISECT_START saved &&
>>       test_must_fail git bisect start $HASH4 foo -- &&
>>       git branch > branch.output &&
>> -     test_i18ngrep "* (no branch)" branch.output > /dev/null &&
>> +     test_i18ngrep "* (bisecting other)" branch.output > /dev/null &&
>
> I'd have spelled it (no branch, bisecting other) to make it clear that
> we're on detached HEAD, and avoid confusing old-timers. But maybe your
> version is enough, I'm not sure.

If we want to make it clear, I think the standard "* (no branch)" should become

* HEAD (detached)

or non-detached case:

* HEAD -> foo

Then we could present rebase/bisect information as

* HEAD (detached, bisecting)
* HEAD (detached, rebasing)
* foo (rebasing)

I don't want to make this line too long because it would break (well,
waste space in) column layout. So if we do this, no branch name added
for rebase/bisect.
-- 
Duy