> Jacob Keller writes:
> "git symbolic-ref" seems like the right thing if you need to obtain
> the current branch name, and there's no reason to not just use HEAD
> there.
Really? Any reason why `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref '@{-1}'` works,
but not `git symbolic-ref '@{-1}'`, or even `git symbolic-
ryenus writes:
> For now the best use case I can think of is with git-reflog, e.g.,
> the meaning of `git reflog HEAD` and `git reflog feature-branch`
> are quite different, even if I'm currently on the feature-branch,
> especially when I want to track the rebase histories (if any).
"git reflog"
On 30 August 2016 at 03:49, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jacob Keller writes:
>
>>> What's wrong with simply using 'HEAD' for scripting?
>>
>> When you want to display the current branch to the user, e.g. when
>> scripting a shell prompt or similar use
>
> Wait. Even if a hypothetical version of Git
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jacob Keller writes:
>
>>> What's wrong with simply using 'HEAD' for scripting?
>>
>> When you want to display the current branch to the user, e.g. when
>> scripting a shell prompt or similar use
>
> Wait. Even if a hypothetical version o
Jacob Keller writes:
>> What's wrong with simply using 'HEAD' for scripting?
>
> When you want to display the current branch to the user, e.g. when
> scripting a shell prompt or similar use
Wait. Even if a hypothetical version of Git understood @@ as "the
current branch", how would you use that
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> W dniu 28.08.2016 o 12:51, Kevin Daudt pisze:
>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 05:58:18PM +0800, ryenus wrote:
>
>>> I wonder if there's an easy to use notation to refer to the current branch?
>>> which is expected be friendly to scripting.
>>>
>>
W dniu 28.08.2016 o 12:51, Kevin Daudt pisze:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 05:58:18PM +0800, ryenus wrote:
>> I wonder if there's an easy to use notation to refer to the current branch?
>> which is expected be friendly to scripting.
>>
>> For HEAD, there's @, which is short and concise.
What's wrong
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 05:58:18PM +0800, ryenus wrote:
> I wonder if there's an easy to use notation to refer to the current branch?
> which is expected be friendly to scripting.
>
> For HEAD, there's @, which is short and concise.
>
> But for the current branch, it seems one has to either use a
I wonder if there's an easy to use notation to refer to the current branch?
which is expected be friendly to scripting.
For HEAD, there's @, which is short and concise.
But for the current branch, it seems one has to either use a not so friendly
plumbing command, or grep/parse the output of `git
9 matches
Mail list logo
