From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carl Worth Subject: Re: Making git disappear when talking about my code Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:26:25 -0700 Message-ID: <874pn46w0e.wl%cworth@cworth.org> References: <200704171818.28256.andyparkins@gmail.com> <20070417173007.GV2229@spearce.org> <462521C7.2050103@softax.com.pl> <4627ABBB.8060709@softax.com.pl> <877is29b1l.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7vps5ud91x.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87vefm7l6g.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7v1wiabbfr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87mz0w7g3j.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87k5w07dft.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <87fy6o770w.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <878xcg6zv0.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7vfy6oxnzp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="pgp-sign-Multipart_Wed_Apr_25_13:26:20_2007-1"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Linus Torvalds , Marcin Kasperski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 25 22:26:56 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hgo4i-0002DV-J1 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:26:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993093AbXDYU0o (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:26:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2993096AbXDYU0o (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:26:44 -0400 Received: from theworths.org ([217.160.253.102]:51311 "EHLO theworths.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993093AbXDYU0m (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:26:42 -0400 Received: (qmail 14198 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2007 16:26:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (HELO raht.cworth.org) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Apr 2007 16:26:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7vfy6oxnzp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.4 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --pgp-sign-Multipart_Wed_Apr_25_13:26:20_2007-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:17:30 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Carl Worth writes: > > > It's more that I want a single way to talk about some branch I've just > > published, (necessarily both a url and a branch), and I assume an > > audience with a wide range of git experience, (from none to lots). > > Why would you want to add another syntax that can talk about > only one branch? As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I'm fine with a space for a separator instead of a '#'. I really didn't intend to get hung up on that kind of syntactic issue. The question is how much work is involved in getting from: Checkout my new work: to where the user can just start tracking it (read-only). Right now, in many cases the user has to slice that up and pass the to some commands and the to other commands (see below). > You can say instead: > > I've just written some very fancy feature for our cool project > which is available in the branch at . Please try > it out and give me feedback. [*1*] OK, and I'll fill in the holes in your footnote. I'm perfectly fine with assuming the user already has a clone of the project, (they can find well-published instructions for that on the project site), so then what's left is: *1* From within your git clone of the project, do the following (if you haven't made a remote for my repository before): git remote add cworth Finally, you can start tracking my branch with the following: git fetch cworth git branch --track cworth/ git checkout And use "git pull" periodically to stay abreast of future work I do on that branch. That's workable, but notice that every occurrence of "cworth" in the above is really getting in the user's way. Once a user knows a bit more about git and remotes, it can be really useful to take advantage of them. For example, when I'm interested in inspecting a newly announced branch like this from someone for whom I have already setup a remote I often do: git fetch git log ../ And that's really nice and easy, (yes, multiple-branch tracking in a single repository *is* the one true way). But I don't think forcing the remote-creation on the user, (as in my footnote), is actually making things easier. -Carl --pgp-sign-Multipart_Wed_Apr_25_13:26:20_2007-1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGL7lx6JDdNq8qSWgRAkxgAJ9oNtJblgqMEBwJDndgCjUlzfupjQCgmAzH MU4T8ruGXvvozxIyQ6Zh4b4= =SyMj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pgp-sign-Multipart_Wed_Apr_25_13:26:20_2007-1--