Re: Improving git branch

[Moritz Neeb <lists@moritzneeb.de>]

Jeff King <peff <at> peff.net> writes:

> 
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:53:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> > Michael J Gruber <git <at> drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> > 
> > > Rather than extending "git branch" any further[*], I suggest a bolder
> > > strategy:
> > >
> > > - unify/merge for-each-ref and pretty formats (and code) as far as
possible
> > > - leverage that for the list modes of branch and tag
> > >
> > > That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for
> > > logs. Otherwise it would be very difficult to agree on *the* proper
> > > format for an extended branch or tag list.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > [*] I know I'm a sinner, too.
> > 
> > Actually this is not a "bolder" strategy, but the unification has
> > been discussed and agreed to be the longer-term direction for quite
> > a while, I think.  Didn't Peff have this in his "things to do when
> > absolutely bored" box?
> 
> Yes. It is not even in my "absolutely bored" box, but rather the "I
> would like to work on this but somehow other crap keeps coming up" box.

Is this box public somewhere?

> The last blocker I ran into was that we need to unify the "--contains"
> implementation for "git tag" and "git branch". If anybody wants to push
> this forward, I think that is the best place to start. I can dig up
> references if anybody is interested.
> 

Yes, I would be interested in references. I already found something in
Junio's leftover bits [1] that seems related:
  "git tag --contains" should not consider a tag as the anchor point to
  describe the commit, when it can reach another tag that can also be used
  to describe the commit. Cf. [2]

Regards,
Moritz

[1] http://git-blame.blogspot.fr/p/leftover-bits.html
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/246381/focus=246423