Re: [PATCH v2] branch: show rebase/bisect info when possible instead of "(no branch)"

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

I'd have spelled it (no branch, bisecting other) to make it clear that
we're on detached HEAD, and avoid confusing old-timers. But maybe your
version is enough, I'm not sure.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:23 AM, Matthieu Moy
[off-list ref] wrote:

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

quoted

--- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
+++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh

@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start: existing ".git/BISECT_START" not modified if
      cp .git/BISECT_START saved &&
      test_must_fail git bisect start $HASH4 foo -- &&
      git branch > branch.output &&
-     test_i18ngrep "* (no branch)" branch.output > /dev/null &&
+     test_i18ngrep "* (bisecting other)" branch.output > /dev/null &&

I'd have spelled it (no branch, bisecting other) to make it clear that
we're on detached HEAD, and avoid confusing old-timers. But maybe your
version is enough, I'm not sure.

If we want to make it clear, I think the standard "* (no branch)" should become

* HEAD (detached)

or non-detached case:

* HEAD -> foo

Then we could present rebase/bisect information as

* HEAD (detached, bisecting)
* HEAD (detached, rebasing)
* foo (rebasing)

I don't want to make this line too long because it would break (well,
waste space in) column layout. So if we do this, no branch name added
for rebase/bisect.
-- 
Duy

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Duy Nguyen [off-list ref] wrote:

* foo (rebasing)

Well, this one does not make sense (or causes more confusion).
-- 
Duy