From: Brian Gesiak <modocache@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:19:41 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-rebase: Print name of rev when using shorthand
Message-ID: <CAN7MxmUikP6pVAj3cpDiSbFxawScTh5zKusPUe8SpkNbH=e6Aw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwqerogvr.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Thank you for the feedback!

> Imagine the case where there are more than one branches
> whose tip points at the commit you came from.
> name-rev will not be able to pick correctly which one to report.

I see. Yes, you're exactly right; the following demonstrates
the problem:

$ git checkout -b xylophone master
$ git checkout -b aardvark master
$ git name-rev --name-only @{-1} # I'd want "xylophone", but this
outputs "aardvark"

So it appears name-rev is not up to the task here.

> I think you would want to use something like:
>
>         upstream_name=$(git rev-parse --symbolic-full-name @{-1})
>         if test -n "$upstream"
>         then
>                 upstream_name=${upstream_name#refs/heads/}
>         else
>                 upstream_name="@{-1}"
>         fi
>
> if the change is to be made at that point in the code.

I agree, I will re-roll the patch to use this approach.

> I also wonder if "git rebase @{-1}" deserve a similar translation
> like you are giving "git rebase -".

Personally, I've been using the "-" shorthand with "git checkout"
for a year or so, but only learned about "@{-1}" a few months ago.
I think those who use "@{-1}" are familiar enough with the concept
that they don't need to have the reference translated to a symbolic
full name. Users familiar with "-" might not be aware of "@{-1}",
however, so I'd prefer not to output it as we are currently.

Furthermore, were we to translate "@{-1}", does that mean we
should also translate "@{-2}" or prior? I don't think that's the case,
but then only translating "@{-1}" would seem inconsistent.
From that point of view I'd prefer to simply translate "-",
not "@{-1}".

- Brian Gesiak