Re: [PATCH] Added guilt.reusebranch configuration option.

Theodore Ts'o wrote:

Spekaing of which, what I'd really appreciate is timestamps associated
with the reflog.  That's because the most common time when I've
screwed something up is after doing a "git rebase -i" and so the
reflog has a *huge* number of entries on it, and figuring out which
entry in the reflog is the right one is painful.  If could tell at a
glance when each entry of the reflog was created, it would make it a
lot easier to untangle a tree mangled by git rebase -i.

Yeah, I completely agree with this one.  I've wished for the reflog to
be presented in a nicer ui, with humanized timestamps and colors.

Meh; I don't *need* it.  But then again, I'm an fairly experienced git
user.  The fact that I use guilt without the "guilt/master" safety
feature and have never gotten bitten by it --- in fact I deliberately
publish rewindable branches with a guilt patch series applies speaks
to the fact that I'm pretty experienced at rewindable heads.

Oh, and thanks for mentioning guilt: I just learnt about it.

The only reason why I suggested it is because I believe it would be
useful for people with less experience, and perhaps it would help make
rewindable branches less scary, and less subject to a lot of the
fearmongering that you see on the blogosphere.

My message was a critique.  I'm not denying that the feature may be
useful; it's just that we should have a good rationalization of the
usecase and design something carefully.

Sure, and if I cared I'd make a git alias to automate this, instead of
depending on finger macros.

Yes.  My comment was more of question: can --multiple be more than a
for loop written in shell?  If not, is it worth writing?  Are there
enough users?

Junio mentioned pushurl in the other email: if they're perfect
mirrors, won't pushurl suffice?

I create new branches all the time.  But they are for my own personal
testing purposes.  So it's fairer to say that I rarely *publish* new
branches; I generally stick to the standard set of next, master,
maint, and pu.  And part of that is that even publishing this number
of branches is enough to sometimes confuse the e2fsprogs developers
who are pulling from my tree.

Just for contrast: I never keep anything locally.  I publish as much
of my setup as humanly possible so that I'm not tied to one machine.

In general, no, I don't do that, for the reasons stated above --- even
publishing four branches gets to be confusing enough for people who
are looking at my tree.

Just publish different branches to different locations?  Isn't that
why we got triangular workflows?

I'm sure other people and other communities use git differently, so
please insert the standard disclaimer that there's more than one way
to skin a cat.

Ofcourse.  I believe in being all-inclusive, and not dropping a single
feature that has users.