Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-fetch: mega-terse fetch output

[Theodore Tso <tytso@thunk.org>]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:03:24PM +0200, Santi Béjar wrote:
> This way it is slightly less terse than the other proposals but not
> that cryptic and it normally fits in one line without padding. And I
> really like to see what has changed explicitly with the old..new line.

Same here.

I find the old..new information occasionally useful, since it allows
me to do the git diff --- something for which ORIG_HEAD isn't enough
when you are pulling multiple heads, such as in git.  Can we keep that
optional via a config or an command-line option?

Hmm... how about this?

==> git://repo.or.cz/git/spearce.git
 * branch gitk -> spearce/gitk		(new)
 * branch maint -> spearce/maint	1aa3d01..e7187e4
 * branch master -> spearce/master	de61e42..7840ce6
 * branch next -> spearce/next		895be02..2fe5433
 + branch pu -> spearce/pu		89fa332...1e4c517
 * branch todo -> spearce/todo		(new)

If the branch is new, obviously old..new won't be useful.  The
non-fast forward branch is getting indicated twice, once with the "+"
sign, and once with the triple dot in the range.   

As far as the padding, it would be a pain to figure out how to make
the right hand column be padded so that it starts 3 spaces after the
longest "  * branch foo -> bar" line, but that would look the best.

Finally, one last question --- am I the only one who had to take a
second look at the whether the arrow should be <- or ->?  The question
is whether we are saying "gitk is moving to include all of
spearce/gitk"; but I could also see it stated that we are assigning
refs/heads/gitk with refs/remotes/spearce/gitk, in which case the
arrow should be reversed.   Or maybe:

==> git://repo.or.cz/git/spearce.git
 * branch gitk := spearce/gitk		(new)
 * branch maint := spearce/maint	1aa3d01..e7187e4
 * branch master := spearce/master	de61e42..7840ce6
 * branch next := spearce/next		895be02..2fe5433
 + branch pu := spearce/pu		89fa332...1e4c517
 * branch todo := spearce/todo		(new)

(Or is that too Pascal-like?  :-)

      	       	    	       	      	  	   - Ted