# [PATCH RFC] show-branch: use pager 5 messages from 2013-06-13 to 2013-06-13. Participants: Øystein Walle, Jeff King, Matthieu Moy, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/34119 ## Øystein Walle, 2013-06-13 06:43 Subject: [PATCH RFC] show-branch: use pager Message-ID: <1371105811-3112-1-git-send-email-oystwa@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1371105811-3112-1-git-send-email-oystwa%40gmail.com ``` This is for consistency with other porcelain commands such as 'log'. Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle --- The rationale for this patch I hope is consicely explained in the commit message. I was rather surprised it didn't use a pager as I've gotten used to it for most commands. I marked this as an RFC because of Jeff King's comments in daa0c3d97 where I got the impression this this might not be a good idea. However I haven't found any bugs and all the tests pass. It is more a huble suggestion than anything but I thought I might as well send it as a patch. setup_pager() is already pulled in via cache.h so there was no need to add any #include directive. I suppose this is as close to a one-liner as it gets :) Best regards, Øsse builtin/show-branch.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/builtin/show-branch.c b/builtin/show-branch.c index 90fc6b1..bd3e10c 100644 --- a/builtin/show-branch.c +++ b/builtin/show-branch.c @@ -683,6 +683,7 @@ int cmd_show_branch(int ac, const char **av, const char *prefix) }; git_config(git_show_branch_config, NULL); + setup_pager(); /* If nothing is specified, try the default first */ if (ac == 1 && default_num) { -- 1.8.2.2 ``` ## Jeff King, 2013-06-13 07:01 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] show-branch: use pager Message-ID: <20130613070118.GA23235@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20130613070118.GA23235%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: <1371105811-3112-1-git-send-email-oystwa@gmail.com> ``` On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:43:31AM +0200, Øystein Walle wrote: > This is for consistency with other porcelain commands such as 'log'. I do not use show-branch myself, but being consistent with the other porcelain commands makes sense to me. > I marked this as an RFC because of Jeff King's comments in > daa0c3d97 where I got the impression this this might not be a good idea. > However I haven't found any bugs and all the tests pass. It is more a huble > suggestion than anything but I thought I might as well send it as a patch. I don't think the problems described in daa0c3d97 should be an issue for us, as the purpose of that commit was to delay the color decision until the last minute. That helps commands which load color config before having decided on whether to use a pager. In other words, it covers the exact situation you introduce here: > diff --git a/builtin/show-branch.c b/builtin/show-branch.c > index 90fc6b1..bd3e10c 100644 > --- a/builtin/show-branch.c > +++ b/builtin/show-branch.c > @@ -683,6 +683,7 @@ int cmd_show_branch(int ac, const char **av, const char *prefix) > }; > > git_config(git_show_branch_config, NULL); > + setup_pager(); So I think your patch is fine with respect to those problems. However, I do not see any need for show_branch to delay its pager setup at all. Commands like "git diff" and "git log" must do so, because they do not know whether they want a pager or not until after parsing command-line arguments. But in this case we are always starting the pager. Would it make more sense to just set the USE_PAGER flag in the "show-branch" entry in git.c (see the "shortlog" entry for an example)? -Peff ``` ## Øystein Walle, 2013-06-13 07:57 Subject: [PATCH v2] show-branch: use pager Message-ID: <1371110238-6910-1-git-send-email-oystwa@gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1371110238-6910-1-git-send-email-oystwa%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20130613070118.GA23235@sigill.intra.peff.net> ``` This is for consistency with other porcelain commands such as 'log'. Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle --- Hi, Jeff Thanks for the (fast!) feedback and good to hear it won't cause any trouble. I hadn't actually noticed this mechanism of setting up the pager before now but I fully agree. Here's an updated version. Øsse git.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/git.c b/git.c index 4359086..6d1f6ca 100644 --- a/git.c +++ b/git.c @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void handle_internal_command(int argc, const char **argv) { "send-pack", cmd_send_pack, RUN_SETUP }, { "shortlog", cmd_shortlog, RUN_SETUP_GENTLY | USE_PAGER }, { "show", cmd_show, RUN_SETUP }, - { "show-branch", cmd_show_branch, RUN_SETUP }, + { "show-branch", cmd_show_branch, RUN_SETUP | USE_PAGER }, { "show-ref", cmd_show_ref, RUN_SETUP }, { "stage", cmd_add, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE }, { "status", cmd_status, RUN_SETUP | NEED_WORK_TREE }, -- 1.8.2.2 ``` ## Matthieu Moy, 2013-06-13 09:32 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] show-branch: use pager Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/vpq1u86pd8q.fsf%40anie.imag.fr In-Reply-To: <1371110238-6910-1-git-send-email-oystwa@gmail.com> ``` Øystein Walle writes: > This is for consistency with other porcelain commands such as 'log'. I don't think consistency with other porcelain is a sufficient argument. Many commands purposely don't use the pager by default because they will normally have a short output. Users can already set "pager.show-branch" to get the behavior you introduce in the patch. The question is more: will users prefer having the pager by default for this particular command? I don't use show-branch enough to answer by myself, but probably the answer is yes. (This is not an objection, just to make sure you have all the elements) -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2013-06-13 17:33 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] show-branch: use pager Message-ID: <7vobb9vrt7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vobb9vrt7.fsf%40alter.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <1371105811-3112-1-git-send-email-oystwa@gmail.com> ``` Øystein Walle writes: > This is for consistency with other porcelain commands such as 'log'. > > Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle > --- > The rationale for this patch I hope is consicely explained in the commit > message. I was rather surprised it didn't use a pager as I've gotten used to it > for most commands. > > I marked this as an RFC because of Jeff King's comments in > daa0c3d97 where I got the impression this this might not be a good idea. > However I haven't found any bugs and all the tests pass. The tests are run largely without tty to allow them to run unattended, aren't they? I think it makes a lot of sense to use pager by default for the normal show-branch output. I however do not think pager should apply to other modes (e.g. --independent, --merge-base). But the use of these other modes are meant to be on the upstream side of a pipe or to be written out to a file, so a blanket call to setup_pager() before you even discover what mode we are in would not hurt in practice. ```