Re: [PATCH 2/2] sha1_name: fix error message for @{<N>}, @{<date>}
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 21, 2013, 18:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0=kSxRC_d9feL-_foM3uU11E_Hx_xUL++V6q9k-7kjzbQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vppwkp961.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> More importantly, doesn't "real_ref" have the name of the branch?
>
> Suppose the user said "git show @{10000}" instead of "git show
> master@{10000}" while on 'master'.My stupidity, sorry.
Show 6 quoted lines
> It could be argued that it may look nicer to say "your current > branch does not have enough update history" instead of saying > "master does not..." (i.e. different input to ask for the same > thing, different output depending on the way the user asked). It > also could be argued that they should produce the same diagnosis > that is more informative.
Yeah, I wanted to discuss this: the problem is that even something as low-level as rev-list will print this "pretty" error. It's certainly useful for porcelain. How do we achieve this? An extra "is-porcelain" argument?