Re: $> git branch splat response considered harmful
On 08/08/2019 22:28, Emily Shaffer wrote: On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:20 PM Bryan Turner wrote: On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:08 PM wrote: fwiw, jimc@frodo:~/prj-1/capnproto.git$ git branch -l * master I find the splat in the response unhelpful when wrapped in shell for loop, the splat expands into everything in current directory jimc@frodo:~/prj-1/capnproto.git$ for b in `git branch -l`; do echo $b; done appveyor.yml c++ CMakeLists.txt CONTRIBUTORS ... it would be nice if some flag combo would suppress that splat. save me from fugly brittle sh $IFS fiddlery and incomplete workarounds Have you tried "git for-each-ref --format="%(refname:short)" refs/heads/"? That's going to provide short names for branches without any indicator for the default branch, and without any special ordering. More generally, I think you should take a look at `git help git` and check out the difference between "porcelain" and "plumbing" commands. The former, of which `git branch` is one, are intended for interactive use and not really meant for scripting or piping. You can usually come up with an equivalent from the plumbing commands, which Bryan has suggested for you with `git for-each-ref`. Git project tries very hard to maintain output format of the plumbing commands so as to not break folks' scripts, but such promises aren't usually made for porcelain commands. I think this (the broad Q&A) also suggests that the porcelain command documentation could be more helpful for pointing to the appropriate plumbing commands for these scripting issues (and it could reduce list noise..). -- Philip
Re: $> git branch splat response considered harmful
Emily Shaffer writes: > More generally, I think you should take a look at `git help git` and > check out the difference between "porcelain" and "plumbing" commands. > The former, of which `git branch` is one, are intended for interactive > use and not really meant for scripting or piping. You can usually come > up with an equivalent from the plumbing commands, which Bryan has > suggested for you with `git for-each-ref`. Git project tries very > hard to maintain output format of the plumbing commands so as to not > break folks' scripts, but such promises aren't usually made for > porcelain commands. Thanks for a detailed response. Git project promises that output format of the Porcelain commands is subject to change, in order to support human eyeballs better. Unless documented otherwise (e.g. "git status --porcelain"), it is unwise to try parsing porcelain output---your script may break any time and you get to keep both halves. That is not the same as saying "do not script using Porcelain". Sending the output directly to the end user (e.g. compute the revision range in your script that finally calls "git log" using that computed revision range) is perfectly fine. Thanks.
Re: $> git branch splat response considered harmful
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:08:06PM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote: > fwiw, > > jimc@frodo:~/prj-1/capnproto.git$ git branch -l > * master > > I find the splat in the response unhelpful > when wrapped in shell for loop, the splat expands into everything in > current directory > > jimc@frodo:~/prj-1/capnproto.git$ for b in `git branch -l`; do echo $b; done > appveyor.yml > c++ > CMakeLists.txt > CONTRIBUTORS > ... > > it would be nice if some flag combo would suppress that splat. > save me from fugly brittle sh $IFS fiddlery and incomplete workarounds 'git branch' is not intended for scripting, try 'git for-each-ref' instead. The equivalent command should be: git for-each-ref --format='%(refname:strip=2)' refs/heads/ > also, I found no mention of the splat in the man page. It's in the first sentence of the description :) If --list is given, or if there are no non-option arguments, existing branches are listed; the current branch will be highlighted in green and marked with an asterisk.
Re: $> git branch splat response considered harmful
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:20 PM Bryan Turner wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:08 PM wrote: > > > > fwiw, > > > > jimc@frodo:~/prj-1/capnproto.git$ git branch -l > > * master > > > > I find the splat in the response unhelpful > > when wrapped in shell for loop, the splat expands into everything in > > current directory > > > > jimc@frodo:~/prj-1/capnproto.git$ for b in `git branch -l`; do echo $b; done > > appveyor.yml > > c++ > > CMakeLists.txt > > CONTRIBUTORS > > ... > > > > it would be nice if some flag combo would suppress that splat. > > save me from fugly brittle sh $IFS fiddlery and incomplete workarounds > > Have you tried "git for-each-ref --format="%(refname:short)" > refs/heads/"? That's going to provide short names for branches without > any indicator for the default branch, and without any special > ordering. More generally, I think you should take a look at `git help git` and check out the difference between "porcelain" and "plumbing" commands. The former, of which `git branch` is one, are intended for interactive use and not really meant for scripting or piping. You can usually come up with an equivalent from the plumbing commands, which Bryan has suggested for you with `git for-each-ref`. Git project tries very hard to maintain output format of the plumbing commands so as to not break folks' scripts, but such promises aren't usually made for porcelain commands. -- Emily Shaffer
Re: $> git branch splat response considered harmful
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 2:08 PM wrote: > > fwiw, > > jimc@frodo:~/prj-1/capnproto.git$ git branch -l > * master > > I find the splat in the response unhelpful > when wrapped in shell for loop, the splat expands into everything in > current directory > > jimc@frodo:~/prj-1/capnproto.git$ for b in `git branch -l`; do echo $b; done > appveyor.yml > c++ > CMakeLists.txt > CONTRIBUTORS > ... > > it would be nice if some flag combo would suppress that splat. > save me from fugly brittle sh $IFS fiddlery and incomplete workarounds Have you tried "git for-each-ref --format="%(refname:short)" refs/heads/"? That's going to provide short names for branches without any indicator for the default branch, and without any special ordering.
