Re: [PATCH] branch: add show-tracking option

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 16, 2013, 08:09 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3s_Tg=FX8emOC1Gs_LqPU-i-mWNswoOT82MkNBUUsjUA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5194921F.4080103@drmicha.warpmail.net>

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras venit, vidit, dixit 16.05.2013 09:48:
>> Showing the tracking information for all the branches takes significant
>> amount of time. The user might not want that. The --no-show-tracking
>> option allows that.
>
> I really like the idea of allowing that - not just because I've
> suggested so myself in the past ;)
>
> I feel, though, that we're really exploding our option and config realm.
> For "git branch" in list mode, we are already able to stack "-v", i.e.
> "-v" and "-vv" do different things. How about maybe adding "-vvv" and
> arranging things so that the verbosity and the run time increases with
> the number of v's?
>
> -v list with sha1 + subject of last commit
> -vv add upstream branch name
> -vvv add ahead/behind info (the only costly mode)
> -vvvv same with "--cherry" (ahead/behind/same)

Yeah, I thought about that too.

> Or maybe combine the middle two cases into "-vv", which means it would
> be the same as "-vv", with only "-v" changing what it does now.

Please no, I would like to see 'upstream', but not ahead/behind info. In fact, that's my whole motivation behind this patch.

> Yes, this changes current behavior (at least fpr -v), which sucks
> anyways because of the costly lookup. And those scripting around "branch
> -v" should get what they deserve. (I may sound annoyed by our
> compatibility brakes, but here's a case where breaking it should be OK.)

I also agree that it would be OK to break this.

Alternatively, I've been thinking that we should have a v2.0 mode, or a v2.0 branch, where all the compatibility breakage things go. We have been so careful at not breaking things, that we have been too good at stacking hacks and configurations all over the place, and in my experience it's not unusual that right after an incompatibility release, someone realizes that we forgot some compat breakage things, and oh, well, maybe for v3.0.

The ones I have in mind are:

color.ui=true merge.defaulttoupstream=true format.coverletter=auto branch.autosetupmerge=always mergetool.prompt=false

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras