Re: [PATCH] status: show branch name if possible in in-progress info

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Matthieu Moy
[off-list ref] wrote:

I like the idea.

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

diff --git a/t/t7512-status-help.sh b/t/t7512-status-help.sh
index b3f6eb9..096ba6f 100755
--- a/t/t7512-status-help.sh
+++ b/t/t7512-status-help.sh

@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ test_expect_success 'status when rebase in progress before resolving conflicts'
      test_must_fail git rebase HEAD^ --onto HEAD^^ &&
      cat >expected <<-\EOF &&
      # Not currently on any branch.
-     # You are currently rebasing.
+     # You are currently rebasing '\''rebase_conflicts'\''.

Perhaps "rebasing *branch* 'rebase_conflicts'"

Looks good. One minor thing, if the ref happens to be
refs/somewhere-not-in-heads, should we still say "rebasing branch
'refs/...'" or just "rebasing 'refs/...'", or something else?

Or even "rebasing branch 'rebase_conflicts' on <sha1sum>"

<sha1sum> being SHA-1 of HEAD? Why would you need it? In short
version, not full SHA-1?

?

quoted

@@ -923,7 +947,7 @@ static void show_bisect_in_progress(struct wt_status *s,
                              struct wt_status_state *state,
                              const char *color)
 {
-     status_printf_ln(s, color, _("You are currently bisecting."));
+     status_printf_ln(s, color, _("You are currently bisecting '%s'."), state->branch);
      if (advice_status_hints)
              status_printf_ln(s, color,
                      _("  (use \"git bisect reset\" to get back to the original branch)"));

In the "rebase" case, you test state->branch for null-ness. Don't you
need the same test here? (What happens if you start a bisect from a
detached HEAD state?)

I did read git-bisect.sh. I did not think it allowed bisecting on
detached HEAD. A simple test just told me otherwise. Will update.
-- 
Duy