From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Builtin-commit: show on which branch a commit was added Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:42:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20081001154205.GD4962@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20080929224430.GA11545@sigill.intra.peff.net> <48E1C39F.4070906@op5.se> <836C204F-F5AF-4887-99C9-04E70FEEB998@wincent.com> <20080930070938.GA14757@sigill.intra.peff.net> <48E1F87D.2010906@op5.se> <20081001031400.GA24513@coredump.intra.peff.net> <48E3312E.4090601@op5.se> <20081001151011.GA21310@spearce.org> <20081001152546.GB4962@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20081001153637.GC21310@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Andreas Ericsson , Wincent Colaiuta , Pieter de Bie , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailinglist To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 01 17:43:46 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1Kl3rN-00081J-6T for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:43:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753238AbYJAPmL (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:42:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753167AbYJAPmK (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:42:10 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:4973 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753209AbYJAPmI (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2008 11:42:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 19526 invoked by uid 111); 1 Oct 2008 15:42:06 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:42:06 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:42:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081001153637.GC21310@spearce.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 08:36:37AM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > I briefly considered a format like this while replying above, but > at prior day-job I used rather long branch names (sometimes with > common prefixes) so it would truncate alot: > > normal case > On i386 abc9056 (i386: Snib the sprock) I don't like this purely for the reason that it wastes horizontal space, which is one of the problems that started this discussion. Also, there is no verb, which I think is worse. :) > *sigh* And I just took up the #@*#@!&!*!@ paintbrush myself. > Dammit. I'm putting it down now. Really. :-) Heh. I don't want to stir up trouble or drag you into a discussion you don't want to be in. But it seems like you are saying "OK, this is silly, let's just go with what is in next." But I think Andreas raised a good point about "stuff the user should check should go on the left" which is not consistent with what is in next. So I just want to confirm that you either disagree with that, or simply think it is not important enough to keep the discussion going. -Peff