From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ramkumar Ramachandra Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added guilt.reusebranch configuration option. Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 00:36:51 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1369224677-16404-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20130522134212.GB13731@poseidon.cudanet.local> <20130522144531.GB2777@thunk.org> <7v8v36kiau.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130522180403.GB20848@thunk.org> <7vvc6aj14r.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130523021123.GA23155@thunk.org> <20130523183759.GB1275@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" , Per Cederqvist , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Theodore Ts'o" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 23 21:07:37 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UfarR-000885-0X for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:07:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758472Ab3EWTHd (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 May 2013 15:07:33 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]:41311 "EHLO mail-ie0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758028Ab3EWTHc (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 May 2013 15:07:32 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id a14so9887488iee.27 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 12:07:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=DnH8zL0HXk+nVjxHs1n5u2M8gm9ECLEOjP3sBHziK2w=; b=Zq4p5cGcUVtVBFUSANqXiaHiUhSffsF/8elFknuZyKijrMnR0s8mZT32eEatuBeWQx HE7CEcr9U42ORZOAOBnLw76KKvDeBVA5zx9RgNeGIzTf4k7kRZpBUOjw2Jd5Nm6WzP4A Zfs3WvRvB6h5Zwf6U85+mQ2zMCk85nRNU623PwqJJ8aJb4aldU7ZReVF4MEPDfWxQsgT nkOoxIV8DmcdFXbSp8ual1/qK450NyDrPQ4lTGAfb18dOzK/84nPddZR7dNqzQiGc6dy UoO7DYWu4ZuPu6FuBBWUoOMbQ0jh6cYpSXcZCUuFli5jywznoRJE2D9ZNDsJoblSbqQb Mb0w== X-Received: by 10.42.70.147 with SMTP id f19mr10509025icj.30.1369336051987; Thu, 23 May 2013 12:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.46.1 with HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2013 12:06:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130523183759.GB1275@thunk.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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.