Re: [PATCH] Added guilt.reusebranch configuration option.

[Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Spekaing of which, what I'd really appreciate is timestamps associated
> with the reflog.  That's because the most common time when I've
> screwed something up is after doing a "git rebase -i" and so the
> reflog has a *huge* number of entries on it, and figuring out which
> entry in the reflog is the right one is painful.  If could tell at a
> glance when each entry of the reflog was created, it would make it a
> lot easier to untangle a tree mangled by git rebase -i.

Yeah, I completely agree with this one.  I've wished for the reflog to
be presented in a nicer ui, with humanized timestamps and colors.

> Meh; I don't *need* it.  But then again, I'm an fairly experienced git
> user.  The fact that I use guilt without the "guilt/master" safety
> feature and have never gotten bitten by it --- in fact I deliberately
> publish rewindable branches with a guilt patch series applies speaks
> to the fact that I'm pretty experienced at rewindable heads.

Oh, and thanks for mentioning guilt: I just learnt about it.

> The only reason why I suggested it is because I believe it would be
> useful for people with less experience, and perhaps it would help make
> rewindable branches less scary, and less subject to a lot of the
> fearmongering that you see on the blogosphere.

My message was a critique.  I'm not denying that the feature may be
useful; it's just that we should have a good rationalization of the
usecase and design something carefully.

> Sure, and if I cared I'd make a git alias to automate this, instead of
> depending on finger macros.

Yes.  My comment was more of question: can --multiple be more than a
for loop written in shell?  If not, is it worth writing?  Are there
enough users?

Junio mentioned pushurl in the other email: if they're perfect
mirrors, won't pushurl suffice?

> I create new branches all the time.  But they are for my own personal
> testing purposes.  So it's fairer to say that I rarely *publish* new
> branches; I generally stick to the standard set of next, master,
> maint, and pu.  And part of that is that even publishing this number
> of branches is enough to sometimes confuse the e2fsprogs developers
> who are pulling from my tree.

Just for contrast: I never keep anything locally.  I publish as much
of my setup as humanly possible so that I'm not tied to one machine.

> In general, no, I don't do that, for the reasons stated above --- even
> publishing four branches gets to be confusing enough for people who
> are looking at my tree.

Just publish different branches to different locations?  Isn't that
why we got triangular workflows?

> I'm sure other people and other communities use git differently, so
> please insert the standard disclaimer that there's more than one way
> to skin a cat.

Ofcourse.  I believe in being all-inclusive, and not dropping a single
feature that has users.