Re: [PATCH 5/5] branch: show upstream branch when double verbose

From: Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net>
Date: Apr 9, 2009, 10:15 UTC
Message-ID: <adf1fd3d0904090315x10b8c481g311832c40c450c47@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090409082350.GD17221@coredump.intra.peff.net>

2009/4/9 Jeff King <peff@peff.net>:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 10:02:34AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
>> > will be interpreted as "origin/master is ahead 5, behind 6" when it is
>> > really the reverse. Maybe "[ahead 5, behind 6 from origin/master]" would
>> > be better?
>>
>> Maybe [origin/master +5 -6]? That should be short enough for sticking it
>> into -v. We could even use [origin/master +0 -0] for an up-to-date
>> branch then.
>
> I am not opposed to that format, but I don't feel strongly. And not many
> people are voicing an opinion in this thread (strange, given that it is
> an opportunity for bikeshedding :) ).

I've been thinking about this and both formats seems OK for me, although using the +5 -6 format for just -v seems a good point.

Just to bikeshed a bit more :) we could use a format more similar to the "git fetch" output, like:

  next         c4628f8 [4...6 origin/next] Merge branch 'jk/no-perl' into next
  next         c4628f8 [4.. origin/next] Merge branch 'jk/no-perl' into next
  next         c4628f8 [..6 origin/next] Merge branch 'jk/no-perl' into next

(three dots when they have diverged and two otherwise)

It can suggest that the left number you know it is about things in next and the right number about things in origin/next. The problem is that is also looks like revisions.

Just my 2cents, but feel free to ignore ;-) Santi