Re: [PATCH 5/6] status: do not depend on flaky reflog messages
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 13, 2013, 18:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0kjxKFkrLArL1mLZYCMN1=sgnDSa3vaoJm6eSUp2E4Pyw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vvc5hubox.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> At this point, the utility of such a message is in question. > > You can question, but I am not convinced the answer is an > unambiguous "not useful"
I am not arguing for an unambiguous "not useful". I am arguing for a practical compromise: this patch locks things up too tightly, and makes life hell for contributors who want to improve reflog messages. To be clear: the problem is not the feature, but rather in the _implementation_ of the feature.
Show 12 quoted lines
> You were at 1.8.2 but no longer are, so in the following sequence: > > $ git checkout v1.8.2 > $ git status > $ git reset --hard HEAD^ > $ git status > > the former would say "detached at v1.8.2" while the latter should > *not*, because we are no longer at v1.8.2. "detached from v1.8.2" > is too subtle a way to express the state, and is confusing, but I > would not be surprised if people find it useful to be able to learn > "v1.8.2" even after you strayed away.
What is wrong with git describe? Is this cheaper, or am I missing something?
Show 10 quoted lines
>> Moreover, >> there are several tests in t/status-help that explicitly rely on rebase >> writing "checkout: " messages to the reflog. As evidenced by the >> failing tests in t/checkout-last, these messages are completely >> unintended and flaky. > > The above only helps to convince me that "rebase should not affect > what the last checked-out branch was by letting 'checkout' it > internally calls to write reflog entries for it" With patches 6, 2, > and 3, I thought you fixed that issue.
I also thought of ignoring the first line in the actual output ("HEAD detached from/to"), and comparing the rest to make the tests pass. At that point, you start to wonder: what is this fantastic feature that we are bending over backwards for?