Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref] writes:
/*
+ * Print branch information for porcelain v2 output. These lines
+ * are printed when the '--branch' parameter is given.
+ *
+ * # branch.oid <commit><eol>
+ * # branch.head <head><eol>
Just bikeshedding, but ...
+ if (!s->branch)
+ fprintf(s->fp, "# branch.head %s%c", "(unknown)", eol);
+ else {
+ if (!strcmp(s->branch, "HEAD")) {
+ fprintf(s->fp, "# branch.head %s%c", "(detached)", eol);
+
+ if (state.rebase_in_progress || state.rebase_interactive_in_progress)
+ branch_name = state.onto;
+ else if (state.detached_from)
+ branch_name = state.detached_from;
+ else
+ branch_name = "";
+ } else {
+ branch_name = NULL;
+ skip_prefix(s->branch, "refs/heads/", &branch_name);
+
+ fprintf(s->fp, "# branch.head %s%c", branch_name, eol);
... given that we are showing branch name, perhaps "branch.name"
instead of "branch.head" is more appropriate?
I wondered if "# " prefix before these lines is useful, by the way,
and initially thought that the fact that these lines begin with
"branch." and not with the "1/2/u $key" sufficient clue for whoever
reads them, but the reader can tell which kind of record it is by
reading the first two characters of each line (i.e. if "# " that is
not the usual "change info for a single file"), so it is actually a
good idea.
Thanks.
On 08/05/2016 01:01 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff Hostetler [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
/*
+ * Print branch information for porcelain v2 output. These lines
+ * are printed when the '--branch' parameter is given.
+ *
+ * # branch.oid <commit><eol>
+ * # branch.head <head><eol>
Just bikeshedding, but ...
quoted
+ if (!s->branch)
+ fprintf(s->fp, "# branch.head %s%c", "(unknown)", eol);
+ else {
+ if (!strcmp(s->branch, "HEAD")) {
+ fprintf(s->fp, "# branch.head %s%c", "(detached)", eol);
+
+ if (state.rebase_in_progress || state.rebase_interactive_in_progress)
+ branch_name = state.onto;
+ else if (state.detached_from)
+ branch_name = state.detached_from;
+ else
+ branch_name = "";
+ } else {
+ branch_name = NULL;
+ skip_prefix(s->branch, "refs/heads/", &branch_name);
+
+ fprintf(s->fp, "# branch.head %s%c", branch_name, eol);
... given that we are showing branch name, perhaps "branch.name"
instead of "branch.head" is more appropriate?
Either way is fine with me. I just saw your comments on
commit v4-7/8. And leaving it as is is fine.
I wondered if "# " prefix before these lines is useful, by the way,
and initially thought that the fact that these lines begin with
"branch." and not with the "1/2/u $key" sufficient clue for whoever
reads them, but the reader can tell which kind of record it is by
reading the first two characters of each line (i.e. if "# " that is
not the usual "change info for a single file"), so it is actually a
good idea.
Yes, I used the "#" prefix to indicate a header line so that
parsers can always look at the first character and decide.
I set it up so the "--branch" argument creates "# branch.*" headers.
In my first patch series, I included worktree state information
(such as in-a-rebase and the rebase step counts), but it was thought
that that should be an independent effort. So, using this model,
if we later do add a "--state" argument, it would create "# state.*"
headers. And we would not have to change the --porcelain=v2 version
number.
Jeff