Re: What's cooking in git.git (May 2013, #08; Tue, 28)

Ramkumar Ramachandra [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

* rr/die-on-missing-upstream (2013-05-22) 2 commits
 - sha1_name: fix error message for @{<N>}, @{<date>}
 - sha1_name: fix error message for @{u}

 When a reflog notation is used for implicit "current branch", we
 did not say which branch and worse said "branch ''".

 Waiting for series of rerolls to settle.

I'm happy with the version in pu, and I don't intend to send any
re-rolls.

OK, then I'll take a final look at it (I may or may not have
comments after doing so) before merging it down.

Is there something you're not happy with?

By the way, you probably should stop thinking in terms of "me" being
(un)happy.  I am just trying to help by preventing (collectively) us
making silly mistakes.

* publish-rev: the @{push} thing is still in the early poc stages.

I presume this is the one that may someday lay foundations for Tytso's
"do not rebase beyond this point, as I have published it already"?

* for-each-ref-pretty: not ready; working with Duy.

I haven't been paying too much attention to it, but my impression
was a "superset" syntax is coming?  That would be going in the right
direction.

* push-current-head: ready but for the commit message: in your
opinion, it doesn't "fix" anything other than the output.  I'll
rewrite and submit soon.

I do not recall what this one is about, but we'll see when you send
it out.

* pickaxe-doc: you had some more comments in latest iteration, but the
returns from a re-roll are diminishing.  Frankly, the work is too
boring: the first few iterations were interesting, because I was
learning;...

Yeah, some parts of the project is boring and that is not a news.
Think of documentation updates as helping others to learn.