Re: [PATCH] branch: make -v useful

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

On Mon, Jun 07 2021, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

quoted

Disambiguating that is one of the reasons we prefix with the remote
name, but I'd say it makes for a confusing example in a commit message,
and also if instead of saying:

    branch: make -v useful

It said e.g.:

    branch: reverse the priority of what -v and -vv show

I guess that depends on what you consider this patch is doing, why, and how.

But I have no problem with your version.

quoted

Or something similar to note that it's not "useful" now, but an
opinionated change about what we should show on verbosity level 1 and 2.

I'm not sure I parsed that correctly, but that's the whole point:
verbosity level 1 is not very useful (I'd argue not useful at all).

Maybe, anyway I meant to suggest saying something approaching "reverse
the order of the data we consider important" instead of the equivalent
of "make the data useful".

All right, that transmits the message I want to transmit and is less
abrasive, so that's good.

I've updated the title, and in fact changed the whole commit message.

quoted

quoted

Whereas you are presumably tracking origin/master for some, building on
your own topic (or other people's topics) for another etc., I think that
workflow is much rarer outside of linux.git and git.git, and even for
those most people usually track origin/master with most of their topics.

That's an unsupported assumption.

As I showed above, most pople track the branch they push to, not
origin/master.

Google "git branch -v", and you will find mostly official documentation
and man pages.

Google "git branch -vv", and you will find mostly blog posts, Stack
Overflow questions, and cheat sheets.

I think the reason why is obvious.

Yes, I stand corrected.

For what it's worth I think one thing to salvage from my ill-informed
rambling is that I was under that impression because I set
push.default=upstream.

But yes, with "simple" being the default and refusing to have
avar/my-topic have an upstream of origin/master my setup is probably not
the common case.

This is one of the reasons I force myself to have a .gitconfig as clean
as possible; to try to emulate as much as possible the experience of the
typical git user.

Having used push.default=simple for many years now, I find it very
suboptimal. Basically I can't trust git to do the right thing, and I
always specify what to push.

I suspect this is what most users do (unless they have setup upstream
like `git push -u`).

For what it's worth, when there's a difference of opinion in the mailing
list sometimes I create polls in reddit to see what the users think, and
I did for this one:

https://www.reddit.com/r/git/comments/nuf3p5/where_do_you_point_your_upstream_branch_to/

At the moment 13 people say they use origin/master, 11 repo/branch, and
11 say they it's the same thing in their case (e.g. origin/dev).
8 people don't know what an upstream branch is.

I wonder if this should depend on the setting of push.default, or
whether we can infer anything at all from that setting. After all you
can set it to whatever and then either manually do "git push <remote>
<src>:<dst>" (my usual worklow is just "git push origin HEAD"), or
manually do the "git rebase origin/master" or whatever in the case where
your upstream is your own topic branch.

I do have a much better solution that makes everything work for all
configurations, but the patches are not ready yet, and I'm certain will
receive pushback, just like the last time I sent it.

This is the first patch, which I don't think has anything to do with
the rest of the patches, and can very well stand on its own.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras