From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 18:09:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sha1_name: fix error message for @{<N>}, @{<date>}
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.

> 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?