From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] git-fetch: mega-terse fetch output Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:46:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20071019064620.GA28932@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071019062219.GA28499@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Shawn O. Pearce" To: David Symonds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 19 08:46:36 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iilcx-00011N-SI for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:46:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752499AbXJSGqY (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:46:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754381AbXJSGqY (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:46:24 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:3662 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751750AbXJSGqX (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:46:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 9820 invoked by uid 111); 19 Oct 2007 06:46:21 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:46:21 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:46:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:39:56PM +1000, David Symonds wrote: > What about making it even more terse so it's even easier to visually > scan: (mainly thinking that fast-forwarding is so common it could be > considered the "default") Reasonable. I think it would be easier to scan if the fields were column-aligned, but that requires making a few passes, which would change the current code quite a bit. Or we could just fake it and give it 20 characters for a branch name, padded with spaces. > > ==> git://repo.or.cz/git/spearce.git > * gitk -> origin/gitk (new) I miss the "branch" designator, personally. I do like the "new" to differentiate from fast-forward. > * maint -> origin/maint > * master -> origin/master > * next -> origin/next > - pu -> origin/pu (refused) I think this needs to explain why it was refused (non-fast forward, refused). And you may still have: * pu -> origin/pu (non-fast forward) for forced updates. > ==> git://repo.or.cz/git/spearce.git > * tag v1.5.3.2 I am fine with that, as long as there aren't cases where we lose information (i.e., where the local and remote tag names differ). > Also, perhaps the trailing notes (fast forward, refused, etc.) should > be significantly indented to the right to stand out even further from > branch names that might be quite long. Again, we could probably fake that by fixing the minimum column width of the other fields. -Peff