Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH GSoC] Allow "-" as a short-hand for "@{-1}" in branch deletions

Hi Stefan,

Really appreciate your help on this, but I guess I am cancelling this
patch for Siddharth's.

史舒扬 Shuyang Shi
Department of CS, School of EECS, Peking University
Email: shuyang790@xxxxxxxxx
Mobile: +86-18301336991

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Welcome to the Git community!
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Shuyang Shi <shuyang790@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The "-" shorthand that stands for "the branch we were previously on",
>> like we did for "git merge -" sometime after we introduced "git checkout -".
>> Now I am introducing this shorthand to branch delete, i.e.
>> "git branch -d -".
>> More reference:
>>   https://public-inbox.org/git/7vppuewl6h.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> Following that link:
>> But there is a very commonly accepted long tradition for "-" to mean
>> "read from the standard input", so we cannot reuse it to mean "the
>> branch I was previously on" for every command without first making
>> sure the command will never want to use "-" for the other common
>> purpose.
> This contradicts the introduction of "git branch -d -" to mean to delete
> the last branch, but rather could mean "read from stdin which branches
> to delete"? It would be nice if you could clarify in your commit message
> which of both this is and how this fits into the big picture of "design
> cleanliness".
>> And this has been tested:
>>         Ivan:git Ivan$ (cd t; prove --timer --jobs 1 ./t3200-branch.sh)
>>         [00:21:26] ./t3200-branch.sh .. ok    12293 ms ( 0.04 usr  0.01 sys +
>>         5.97 cusr  2.52 csys =  8.54 CPU)
>>         [00:21:39]
>>         All tests successful.
>>         Files=1, Tests=113, 13 wallclock secs ( 0.07 usr  0.02 sys +
>>         5.97 cusr  2.52 csys =  8.58 CPU)
>>         Result: PASS
> Thanks for being cautious when developing on Git. However this part
> of the email would end up as part of the commit message. And as we expect
> all commits that land eventually to not break tests, this information is better
> put at a more non-permanent place, such as below the '---' line (where there is
> also the built stat. For example see [1] how to have different message parts
> (one permanent section and some chatter that is relevant for the process
> at the moment)
> Also for testing, the tests only ensure that the old behavior does not break;
> but we'd want to make sure the new functionality doesn't break in the
> future either,
> which can be done best by writing a test as well for this functionality.
> [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqvarj1kix.fsf_-_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> and as a commit:
> https://github.com/gitster/git/commit/83218867fbf6d27c78efe3cfba01790b2f1d15d4
>> https://github.com/git/git/pull/337
> Oh I see, you're using submitgit to communicate the patch to the mailing list.
> I am not sure if it supports splitting up the message as I eluded to above.
> IIRC some people use submitgit for the patch and then use a webmailer
> (e.g. gmail) to send followup messages such as successful tests or what changed
> to prior versions.
> Thanks,
> Stefan