Improving git branch

> Hi all,
> 
>   I'm interested in putting in some time and effort into improving the
> output of "git branch".
> 
>   What I'm thinking is an output like this:
> 
> $ git branch
> 
> 2014-12-17 * (detached from origin/master)     deaba04 Do stuff
> 2014-12-15   john.ta/add_timing_info                6edbcfa  Add timing stuff
> 2014-12-14   master                                          8537316
> [origin/master: ahead 1, behind 16] Some stuff
> 2014-12-12   john.ta/new_reduce_memory       99d84db Reintroduce: memory stuff
> 2014-12-05   john.ta/bugfixes                            e15c95e Add stuff
> 2014-12-03   john.ta/container                           e9fd4e5 This
> branch is a test bed for containers
> 
> 
> (These columns are supposed to be all aligned nicely..)
> 
> So, features:
> 
> 1. Show the date of the last commit
> 2. Sort by date.  Most recently used branches at the top
> 3. Show the branch name, including your current "branch", with a * to
> indicate that it's checked out.
> 4. Show the sha
> 5. Show the branch DESCRIPTION - and if that's not available, show the
> short-line of the most recent commit.
> 
> There is also a small amount of color here that I can't paste here, to
> follow the coloring in the current git branch.
> 
> Before I start making patches etc, what do people think?  Would I have
> a chance of getting this in?  Should I change some aspects etc?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John Tapsell
> 

> John Tapsell schrieb am 17.12.2014 um 12:10:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>   I'm interested in putting in some time and effort into improving the
>> output of "git branch".
>>
>>   What I'm thinking is an output like this:
>>
>> $ git branch
>>
>> 2014-12-17 * (detached from origin/master)     deaba04 Do stuff
>> 2014-12-15   john.ta/add_timing_info                6edbcfa  Add timing stuff
>> 2014-12-14   master                                          8537316
>> [origin/master: ahead 1, behind 16] Some stuff
>> 2014-12-12   john.ta/new_reduce_memory       99d84db Reintroduce: memory stuff
>> 2014-12-05   john.ta/bugfixes                            e15c95e Add stuff
>> 2014-12-03   john.ta/container                           e9fd4e5 This
>> branch is a test bed for containers
>>
>>
>> (These columns are supposed to be all aligned nicely..)
>>
>> So, features:
>>
>> 1. Show the date of the last commit
>> 2. Sort by date.  Most recently used branches at the top
>> 3. Show the branch name, including your current "branch", with a * to
>> indicate that it's checked out.
>> 4. Show the sha
>> 5. Show the branch DESCRIPTION - and if that's not available, show the
>> short-line of the most recent commit.
>>
>> There is also a small amount of color here that I can't paste here, to
>> follow the coloring in the current git branch.
>>
>> Before I start making patches etc, what do people think?  Would I have
>> a chance of getting this in?  Should I change some aspects etc?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John Tapsell
>>
>
> I support the general goal, we have quite some way to go there.
>
> As to the method: "git branch" in list mode, "git tag" in list mode and
> "git for-each-ref" all do similar things and are in turn not dissimilar
> from "git log --no-walk" with appropriate formatting and rev options.
>
> Rather than extending "git branch" any further[*], I suggest a bolder
> strategy:
>
> - unify/merge for-each-ref and pretty formats (and code) as far as possible
> - leverage that for the list modes of branch and tag
>
> That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for
> logs. Otherwise it would be very difficult to agree on *the* proper
> format for an extended branch or tag list.
>
> Michael
>
>
> [*] I know I'm a sinner, too.

> I don't fully understand - if I did that, then what difference would
> an average user actually see?
> 
> On 17 December 2014 at 11:28, Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>> John Tapsell schrieb am 17.12.2014 um 12:10:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>   I'm interested in putting in some time and effort into improving the
>>> output of "git branch".
>>>
>>>   What I'm thinking is an output like this:
>>>
>>> $ git branch
>>>
>>> 2014-12-17 * (detached from origin/master)     deaba04 Do stuff
>>> 2014-12-15   john.ta/add_timing_info                6edbcfa  Add timing stuff
>>> 2014-12-14   master                                          8537316
>>> [origin/master: ahead 1, behind 16] Some stuff
>>> 2014-12-12   john.ta/new_reduce_memory       99d84db Reintroduce: memory stuff
>>> 2014-12-05   john.ta/bugfixes                            e15c95e Add stuff
>>> 2014-12-03   john.ta/container                           e9fd4e5 This
>>> branch is a test bed for containers
>>>
>>>
>>> (These columns are supposed to be all aligned nicely..)
>>>
>>> So, features:
>>>
>>> 1. Show the date of the last commit
>>> 2. Sort by date.  Most recently used branches at the top
>>> 3. Show the branch name, including your current "branch", with a * to
>>> indicate that it's checked out.
>>> 4. Show the sha
>>> 5. Show the branch DESCRIPTION - and if that's not available, show the
>>> short-line of the most recent commit.
>>>
>>> There is also a small amount of color here that I can't paste here, to
>>> follow the coloring in the current git branch.
>>>
>>> Before I start making patches etc, what do people think?  Would I have
>>> a chance of getting this in?  Should I change some aspects etc?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John Tapsell
>>>
>>
>> I support the general goal, we have quite some way to go there.
>>
>> As to the method: "git branch" in list mode, "git tag" in list mode and
>> "git for-each-ref" all do similar things and are in turn not dissimilar
>> from "git log --no-walk" with appropriate formatting and rev options.
>>
>> Rather than extending "git branch" any further[*], I suggest a bolder
>> strategy:
>>
>> - unify/merge for-each-ref and pretty formats (and code) as far as possible
>> - leverage that for the list modes of branch and tag
>>
>> That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for
>> logs. Otherwise it would be very difficult to agree on *the* proper
>> format for an extended branch or tag list.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> [*] I know I'm a sinner, too.

> Rather than extending "git branch" any further[*], I suggest a bolder
> strategy:
>
> - unify/merge for-each-ref and pretty formats (and code) as far as possible
> - leverage that for the list modes of branch and tag
>
> That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for
> logs. Otherwise it would be very difficult to agree on *the* proper
> format for an extended branch or tag list.
>
> Michael
>
>
> [*] I know I'm a sinner, too.

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
> > Rather than extending "git branch" any further[*], I suggest a bolder
> > strategy:
> >
> > - unify/merge for-each-ref and pretty formats (and code) as far as possible
> > - leverage that for the list modes of branch and tag
> >
> > That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for
> > logs. Otherwise it would be very difficult to agree on *the* proper
> > format for an extended branch or tag list.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > [*] I know I'm a sinner, too.
> 
> Actually this is not a "bolder" strategy, but the unification has
> been discussed and agreed to be the longer-term direction for quite
> a while, I think.  Didn't Peff have this in his "things to do when
> absolutely bored" box?

> 
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:53:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Michael J Gruber <git <at> drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> > 
> > > Rather than extending "git branch" any further[*], I suggest a bolder
> > > strategy:
> > >
> > > - unify/merge for-each-ref and pretty formats (and code) as far as

> > > - leverage that for the list modes of branch and tag
> > >
> > > That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for
> > > logs. Otherwise it would be very difficult to agree on *the* proper
> > > format for an extended branch or tag list.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > [*] I know I'm a sinner, too.
> > 
> > Actually this is not a "bolder" strategy, but the unification has
> > been discussed and agreed to be the longer-term direction for quite
> > a while, I think.  Didn't Peff have this in his "things to do when
> > absolutely bored" box?
> 
> Yes. It is not even in my "absolutely bored" box, but rather the "I
> would like to work on this but somehow other crap keeps coming up" box.

> The last blocker I ran into was that we need to unify the "--contains"
> implementation for "git tag" and "git branch". If anybody wants to push
> this forward, I think that is the best place to start. I can dig up
> references if anybody is interested.
> 

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> Rather than extending "git branch" any further[*], I suggest a bolder
>> strategy:
>>
>> - unify/merge for-each-ref and pretty formats (and code) as far as possible
>> - leverage that for the list modes of branch and tag
>>
>> That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for
>> logs. Otherwise it would be very difficult to agree on *the* proper
>> format for an extended branch or tag list.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> [*] I know I'm a sinner, too.
> 
> Actually this is not a "bolder" strategy, but the unification has
> been discussed and agreed to be the longer-term direction for quite
> a while, I think.  Didn't Peff have this in his "things to do when
> absolutely bored" box?
> 

>   I'm interested in putting in some time and effort into improving the
> output of "git branch".
>
>   What I'm thinking is an output like this:
>
> $ git branch
>
> 2014-12-17 * (detached from origin/master)     deaba04 Do stuff
> 2014-12-15   john.ta/add_timing_info                6edbcfa  Add timing stuff
> 2014-12-14   master                                          8537316
> [origin/master: ahead 1, behind 16] Some stuff
> 2014-12-12   john.ta/new_reduce_memory       99d84db Reintroduce: memory stuff
> 2014-12-05   john.ta/bugfixes                            e15c95e Add stuff
> 2014-12-03   john.ta/container                           e9fd4e5 This
> branch is a test bed for containers
>
>
> (These columns are supposed to be all aligned nicely..)
>
> So, features:
>
> 1. Show the date of the last commit
> 2. Sort by date.  Most recently used branches at the top
> 3. Show the branch name, including your current "branch", with a * to
> indicate that it's checked out.
> 4. Show the sha
> 5. Show the branch DESCRIPTION - and if that's not available, show the
> short-line of the most recent commit.
>
> There is also a small amount of color here that I can't paste here, to
> follow the coloring in the current git branch.
>
> Before I start making patches etc, what do people think?  Would I have
> a chance of getting this in?  Should I change some aspects etc?