Duy Nguyen wrote:
> Hmm.. I missed that mail (or I wouldn't have worked on this already).
> Do you want to take over?
Oh, we can collaborate on one beautiful series :)
> "branch -vv" shows [upstream: ahead x, behind y]. We need a syntax to
> cover that too.
Can't we construct that using [%(upstream:short): %(upstream:diff)]?
It's nothing fundamental.
> pretty and for-each-ref format seem to be on the opposite: one is
> terse, one verbose. Unless you are going to introduce a lot of new
> specifiers (and in the worst case, bring all pretty specifiers over,
> unify underlying code), I think we should stick with %(xx) convention.
We can stick to using the existing %(...) atoms: there's no need to go
as far as %an versus %aN. The atoms cannot be consistent with
pretty-formats anyway, because pretty-formats has completely different
atoms. For the _new_ stuff like color and alignment, we can be
consistent with pretty-formats, no?
>> Why should we deviate from the pretty case? What is different here?
> Laziness plays a big factor :) So again, you want to take over? ;)
It's just a matter of modifying the parsing/printing layer, instead of
introducing new atoms in the current parser. Doesn't $gmane/224692
demonstrate that the former can, in fact, be easier?
> it uses builtin/branch.c:branch_use_color. Eventually
> fill_tracking_info() should be moved to for-each-ref.c and pass
> branch_use_color in as an argument. But for now, I just leave it
Auto-color can come later: it's not that urgent. What's more
important is that we give users the flexibility to set their own
Can you give me a pull URL to your series, so we can start
collaborating? Mine's at gh:artagnon/git (branch: hot-branch).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html