From: Justin Donnelly <justinrdonnelly@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 03:36:08 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] git-prompt: show presence of unresolved conflicts at command prompt
Message-ID: <CAGTqyRyBAR1SCpKwU2mTTKz0-nOPgJ1Es6aGVBgJqrnZ9Z_P1w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <r980s5q6-7714-8r0q-4sp1-3qs1458r17qs@tzk.qr>

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 8:50 AM Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Justin Donnelly <justinrdonnelly@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > I hope this is against protocol/etiquette, but after some initial
> > > feedback from Junio, I haven't gotten any more. I wasn't sure if
> > > nobody had seen the patch, or if there just wasn't any interest.
> >
> > It probably is a bit of both.  I personally did not see much point
> > in adding the long "conflicts" marker to the shell prompt (I did
> > worry about possible complaints by end users triggered by seeing
> > them suddenly without asking, which was why I commented on the
> > patch) and I was waiting for interested folks to speak out.
>
> Speaking for myself, I was too busy elsewhere. But now that I looked over
> the patch, I think it is fine. My only feedback is that it would be wise
> to only add a single test case because that is plenty enough (after all,
> it validates the `ls-files --unmerged` call and not the `cherry-pick`
> code) and it is unnecessary to waste the electricity on additional tests
> cases (even if somebody else foots the bill, it would do well for all of
> us to start being more mindful about energy consumption).

That makes sense. I'll get started on a re-roll to just have a single
test that focuses specifically on the conflict indicator.

>
> Ciao,
> Dscho

Thanks,
Justin