Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: patterns for branch list

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 25.08.2011 19:53:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:30:16AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> 
>> This mini series is about introducing patterns to the list mode of
>> 'git branch' much like the pattern for 'git tag -l'. There are several
>> related things which are to be considered for the ui design:
> 
>> [log vs tag vs branch]
> 
> I agree that the ideal UI change would be to move git-branch's "-l" to
> "-g", and make "-l|--list" work the same as it does for git-tag.
> 
> Even though branch is generally considered a porcelain, I worry a little
> about making that change. A script that wants to create a branch has no
> real choice other than to use "git branch" (OK, they can use
> "update-ref" themselves, but I seriously doubt that most scripts do so).
> However, I kind of doubt anyone actually uses "-l"; it is mostly
> pointless in the default config, so maybe it is safe.
> 
> Searching google code for "git.branch.*-l" turns up only one hit, and it
> is somebody who apparently thought that "-l" meant "list".

;)

Thanks for doing the search.

>> Analogous to "git tag", "branch" has several modes, one of which is list mode.
>> It is currently activated (and possibly modified) by "-v" and "-vv", and when
>> there are no arguments. So, at the least,
>>
>> git branch -v[v] <pattern>
>>
>> should match just like "git tag -l <pattern>" does. And that is what the first
>> patch in my series does.
> 
> The order of your patches seems backwards to me. You add
> pattern-matching for "-v", but there is no way to get pattern-matching
> for the non-verbose case. Shouldn't "--list" come first?
> 
> Maybe I am just nitpicking, as I think the end result after the series
> is the same. I just found the first patch very confusing.

It's an RFC series to revive the discussion about what to aim for.
Agreement about "--list" seems to be growing, so a natural first patch
would introduce that.

>> "git tag" should probably learn the same long option and others. And why not
>> verify tags given by a pattern?
> 
> Yeah, having them both do --list makes sense. Whether it is appropriate
> to glob for other operations, I don't know. I think you'd have to
> look at each operation individually.
> 
>> Both "tag" and "branch" could activate list mode automatically on an invalid
>> tag name rather than dieing:
>>
>> git tag v1.7.6\*
>> Warning: tag 'v1.7.6*' not found.
>> v1.7.6
>> v1.7.6-rc0
>> v1.7.6-rc1
>> v1.7.6-rc2
>> v1.7.6-rc3
>> v1.7.6.1
> 
> That just seems confusing to me. What is the exit status? Shouldn't the
> warning be "error: tag 'v1.7.6*' is not a valid tag name"?

Sure, and sorry, copied the wrong one. I'd just like to have the simple
way to say "git branch peff/\*" at least as long as we don't have "-l"
for "--list".

>> -v[v] sanity
>> ============
>>
>> '-v' and '-vv' both take considerable time (because they need to walk).
>> It makes more sense to have '-v' display cheap output (upstream name)
>> and '-vv' add expensive output (ahead/behind info). '-vvv' could add super
>> expensive info (ahead/equivalent/behind a la cherry-mark).
> 
> I think the original rationale was not so much "how much time does it
> take", but rather "how much space do you want each line to take on your
> terminal". For many people, the upstream name in "-vv" is just
> cluttering noise.

According to my experience, the ahead/behind computations take so much
time (in a git.git clone with my devel branches) that they render all
"-v" versions unusable, unless I use a restrictive pattern.

On the other hand, I have branches based on all of origin/{master,next}
and others, so having the upstream name is valuable.

Seems that I'm an outlier, though.

> Tag and branch listing are really just specialized versions of
> for-each-ref. I wonder if it makes sense to do:
> 
>   1. Teach for-each-ref formats replacement tokens for ahead/behind
>      counts.
> 
>   2. Let the user specify a for-each-ref format for tag and branch
>      listing output. Then the various levels of "-v" just become some
>      special format strings, and the user is free to ask for whatever
>      they want (or even have "branch.defaultListFormat" to get it
>      without typing over and over).

for-each-peff ;)

For a moment, the use of the walker in builtin/branch.c even tricked me
into thinking that it might not use for-each-ref at all. God forbid!

I actually like the format suggestion. Then we only need to discuss the
default format, which is hopefully less of a problem. But that is
something for later, I'll discard the -v[v[v]] patches for now. Have we
unified log formats and for-each-ref formats and parsers already, btw? I
recall some efforts.

Michael