From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:31:31 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document and test the new % shotcut for the tracked branch
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0903201128380.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <1237543471-27248-1-git-send-email-git@drmicha.warpmail.net>

Hi,

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Michael J Gruber wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
> ---

That is brutal.  First shot, then cut.

> Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 20.03.2009 10:29:
> > 
> > Often, it is quite interesting to inspect the branch tracked by a 
> > given branch.  This patch introduces a nice notation to get at the 
> > tracked branch: 'BEL<branch>' can be used to access that tracked 
> > branch.
> > 
> > A special shortcut 'BEL' refers to the branch tracked by the current 
> > branch.
> > 
> > Suggested by Pasky and Shawn.
> > 
> > This patch extends the function introduced to handle the nth-last 
> > branch (via the {-<n>} notation); therefore that function name was 
> > renamed to something more general.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> 
> I guess you beat me to it then, which is fine.

I had it ready yesterday!  But the real problem is not addressed by your 
patch, either: '%<branch>' is a legal branch name.

I briefly considered <branch>^{tracked}, but

- the ^{} codepath does not try to substitute branch _names_, so we'd have 
  to duplicate that ^{} detection, and,

- it is really cumbersome to write.

> But haven't you seen my note about the failing test either? The code 
> below tests with branches which track local branches. merge and remote 
> is set for the branch in question ("tracking"), it's just that remote is 
> ".". It seems that the remote.c code does not set up merge info for 
> these branches.

I have seen it, it's just not my itch, and I am busy enough as it is.

> <Goes to figure out how to enter BEL...>

Ctrl-v Ctrl-g

Ciao,
Dscho