Re: [PATCH/WIP 0/9] for-each-ref format improvements

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: May 19, 2013, 12:08 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0kYDB+cCsD7Fsymf9ETR2Ymyaf072gCUu6Uh8yFVFJV2Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8DMF3NzvMRUO56H+EwpXSjmY9qzdNdv9cGJ9XxUO=ekJA@mail.gmail.com>

Duy Nguyen wrote:

> Hmm.. I missed that mail (or I wouldn't have worked on this already).
> Do you want to take over?

Oh, we can collaborate on one beautiful series :)

> "branch -vv" shows [upstream: ahead x, behind y]. We need a syntax to
> cover that too.

Can't we construct that using [%(upstream:short): %(upstream:diff)]? It's nothing fundamental.

> pretty and for-each-ref format seem to be on the opposite: one is
> terse, one verbose. Unless you are going to introduce a lot of new
> specifiers (and in the worst case, bring all pretty specifiers over,
> unify underlying code), I think we should stick with %(xx) convention.

We can stick to using the existing %(...) atoms: there's no need to go as far as %an versus %aN. The atoms cannot be consistent with pretty-formats anyway, because pretty-formats has completely different atoms. For the _new_ stuff like color and alignment, we can be consistent with pretty-formats, no?

>> Why should we deviate from the pretty case?  What is different here?
>
> Laziness plays a big factor :) So again, you want to take over? ;)

It's just a matter of modifying the parsing/printing layer, instead of introducing new atoms in the current parser. Doesn't $gmane/224692 demonstrate that the former can, in fact, be easier?

> it uses builtin/branch.c:branch_use_color. Eventually
> fill_tracking_info() should be moved to for-each-ref.c and pass
> branch_use_color in as an argument. But for now, I just leave it
> broken.

Auto-color can come later: it's not that urgent. What's more important is that we give users the flexibility to set their own colors now.

Can you give me a pull URL to your series, so we can start collaborating? Mine's at gh:artagnon/git (branch: hot-branch).