# Improving git branch 9 messages from 2014-12-17 to 2014-12-21. Participants: John Tapsell, Michael J Gruber, Junio C Hamano, Jeff King, Moritz Neeb. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/38190 ## John Tapsell, 2014-12-17 11:10 Subject: Improving git branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAHQ6N%2BqBUcBcG8RC6Co%2Bk_GmJDXCynmyfZmvTjz4bQyH1wG3DA%40mail.gmail.com ``` 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 ``` ## Michael J Gruber, 2014-12-17 11:28 Subject: Re: Improving git branch Message-ID: <549168DD.1080906@drmicha.warpmail.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/549168DD.1080906%40drmicha.warpmail.net In-Reply-To: ``` 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. ``` ## John Tapsell, 2014-12-17 11:51 Subject: Re: Improving git branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAHQ6N%2BpjT9zCdbvjJnFTmJEM%3DbtjDxn8LTRV-j1vbqGfqwks5A%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <549168DD.1080906@drmicha.warpmail.net> ``` 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 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. ``` ## Michael J Gruber, 2014-12-17 12:23 Subject: Re: Improving git branch Message-ID: <549175AF.7070803@drmicha.warpmail.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/549175AF.7070803%40drmicha.warpmail.net In-Reply-To: ``` Also, please don't top-post here. That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for logs. John Tapsell schrieb am 17.12.2014 um 12:51: > 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 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. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2014-12-17 20:51 Subject: Re: Improving git branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqzjam80fb.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: ``` John Tapsell writes: > 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? Three random points: * A single output format can never be favourite of everybody, so this needs to be more like $ git branch --format='%(committerdate) %(refname) %(subject)' optionally with branch.format configuration variable to let the user specify the default. * I am not sure if the "current" marker should be anywhere but the frontmost column in the recommended default. The output from the command obviously is not meant for machine processing (e.g. sorting or grepping), so this point is minor, though. * I do not think the object name should take valuable screen real estate, again in the built-in default (I wouldn't mind people hurting themselves with their configuration at all ;-). After looking at "git branch --pretty-long" output, people can give any command john.ta/bugfixes instead of e15c95e, no? ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2014-12-17 20:53 Subject: Re: Improving git branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqvbla80bm.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <549168DD.1080906@drmicha.warpmail.net> ``` Michael J Gruber 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? ``` ## Jeff King, 2014-12-17 21:01 Subject: Re: Improving git branch Message-ID: <20141217210148.GA26551@peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20141217210148.GA26551%40peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:53:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael J Gruber 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? 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. -Peff ``` ## Michael J Gruber, 2014-12-18 10:05 Subject: Re: Improving git branch Message-ID: <5492A6D8.8060509@drmicha.warpmail.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/5492A6D8.8060509%40drmicha.warpmail.net In-Reply-To: ``` Junio C Hamano schrieb am 17.12.2014 um 21:53: > Michael J Gruber 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? > If "waiting for Peff to be bored" is not a bold strategy then I don't know what would be one ;) Seriously, I didn't feel bold enough to claim that this is agreed upon but I am more than happy that it is! If I can squeeze out some more git time from my other obligations I'll try and help. Michael ``` ## Moritz Neeb, 2014-12-21 16:36 Subject: Re: Improving git branch Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/loom.20141221T170822-647%40post.gmane.org In-Reply-To: <20141217210148.GA26551@peff.net> ``` Jeff King peff.net> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:53:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Michael J Gruber 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? > > 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. Is this box public somewhere? > 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. > Yes, I would be interested in references. I already found something in Junio's leftover bits [1] that seems related: "git tag --contains" should not consider a tag as the anchor point to describe the commit, when it can reach another tag that can also be used to describe the commit. Cf. [2] Regards, Moritz [1] http://git-blame.blogspot.fr/p/leftover-bits.html [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/246381/focus=246423 ```