Re: [PATCH] branch: add show-tracking option

Felipe Contreras venit, vidit, dixit 16.05.2013 10:09:

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Felipe Contreras venit, vidit, dixit 16.05.2013 09:48:

quoted

Showing the tracking information for all the branches takes significant
amount of time. The user might not want that. The --no-show-tracking
option allows that.

I really like the idea of allowing that - not just because I've
suggested so myself in the past ;)

I feel, though, that we're really exploding our option and config realm.
For "git branch" in list mode, we are already able to stack "-v", i.e.
"-v" and "-vv" do different things. How about maybe adding "-vvv" and
arranging things so that the verbosity and the run time increases with
the number of v's?

-v list with sha1 + subject of last commit
-vv add upstream branch name
-vvv add ahead/behind info (the only costly mode)
-vvvv same with "--cherry" (ahead/behind/same)

Yeah, I thought about that too.

quoted

Or maybe combine the middle two cases into "-vv", which means it would
be the same as "-vv", with only "-v" changing what it does now.

Please no, I would like to see 'upstream', but not ahead/behind info.
In fact, that's my whole motivation behind this patch.

I'd be fine with combining the first two also.

quoted

Yes, this changes current behavior (at least fpr -v), which sucks
anyways because of the costly lookup. And those scripting around "branch
-v" should get what they deserve. (I may sound annoyed by our
compatibility brakes, but here's a case where breaking it should be OK.)

I also agree that it would be OK to break this.

Alternatively, I've been thinking that we should have a v2.0 mode, or
a v2.0 branch, where all the compatibility breakage things go. We have
been so careful at not breaking things, that we have been too good at
stacking hacks and configurations all over the place, and in my
experience it's not unusual that right after an incompatibility
release, someone realizes that we forgot some compat breakage things,
and oh, well, maybe for v3.0.

The ones I have in mind are:

color.ui=true
merge.defaulttoupstream=true
format.coverletter=auto
branch.autosetupmerge=always
mergetool.prompt=false

Cheers.

Yes. Additionally, there are things which we can break during normal
releases, but somehow the compatibility discussions have kept us from
doing so. Maybe we need a clearer separation of porcellain and plumbing
again? Or a clearer definition of x, y, z in x.y.z releases? We haven't
even used y increases for incompatible ui changes that much.

Michael