Re: [PATCH] Added guilt.reusebranch configuration option.

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: May 23, 2013, 19:06 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0nXRxL706t4EJoc2SHjwEdjCa_Q1UXZcwz8tsdDmQOneA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130523183759.GB1275@thunk.org>

Theodore Ts'o wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Spekaing of which, what I'd really appreciate is timestamps associated
> with the reflog.  That's because the most common time when I've
> screwed something up is after doing a "git rebase -i" and so the
> reflog has a *huge* number of entries on it, and figuring out which
> entry in the reflog is the right one is painful.  If could tell at a
> glance when each entry of the reflog was created, it would make it a
> lot easier to untangle a tree mangled by git rebase -i.

Yeah, I completely agree with this one. I've wished for the reflog to be presented in a nicer ui, with humanized timestamps and colors.

Show 5 quoted lines

> Meh; I don't *need* it.  But then again, I'm an fairly experienced git
> user.  The fact that I use guilt without the "guilt/master" safety
> feature and have never gotten bitten by it --- in fact I deliberately
> publish rewindable branches with a guilt patch series applies speaks
> to the fact that I'm pretty experienced at rewindable heads.

Oh, and thanks for mentioning guilt: I just learnt about it.

> The only reason why I suggested it is because I believe it would be
> useful for people with less experience, and perhaps it would help make
> rewindable branches less scary, and less subject to a lot of the
> fearmongering that you see on the blogosphere.

My message was a critique. I'm not denying that the feature may be useful; it's just that we should have a good rationalization of the usecase and design something carefully.

> Sure, and if I cared I'd make a git alias to automate this, instead of
> depending on finger macros.

Yes. My comment was more of question: can --multiple be more than a for loop written in shell? If not, is it worth writing? Are there enough users?

Junio mentioned pushurl in the other email: if they're perfect mirrors, won't pushurl suffice?

Show 6 quoted lines

> I create new branches all the time.  But they are for my own personal
> testing purposes.  So it's fairer to say that I rarely *publish* new
> branches; I generally stick to the standard set of next, master,
> maint, and pu.  And part of that is that even publishing this number
> of branches is enough to sometimes confuse the e2fsprogs developers
> who are pulling from my tree.

Just for contrast: I never keep anything locally. I publish as much of my setup as humanly possible so that I'm not tied to one machine.

> In general, no, I don't do that, for the reasons stated above --- even
> publishing four branches gets to be confusing enough for people who
> are looking at my tree.

Just publish different branches to different locations? Isn't that why we got triangular workflows?

> I'm sure other people and other communities use git differently, so
> please insert the standard disclaimer that there's more than one way
> to skin a cat.

Ofcourse. I believe in being all-inclusive, and not dropping a single feature that has users.