Re: [PATCH re-roll] Do not display 'Switched to a new branch' when the branch existed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



sorry for the late reply, i hadn't had access to internet for the last
week and as it turns i sent my response only to tay

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> The "From " line and so on output by "git format-patch" are for your
>> mailer.  Clarifying From:, Date:, and Subject: lines at the start of
>> your message are allowed, though, and can be useful when forwarding
>> patches from someone else.
>
> Knittl, I wonder how you generated this patch? Were you working on top
> of the "bad" commit?

yes, i branched off of your bad commit (or rather the commit after
your bad commit "fix detached head usage") and created the commit with
git commit -c HEAD^ to have the same heading and similar wording
without opening a second terminal to copy it over. so i accidentally
sent the patch with your name as author, which i then fixed with git
amend --reset-author

>>> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
>>> @@ -536,7 +536,9 @@ static void update_refs_for_switch(struct
>>> checkout_opts *opts,
>>>                                       new->name);
>>>                       else
>>>                               fprintf(stderr, "Switched to%s branch '%s'\n",
>>> -                                     opts->branch_exists ? " and reset" : " a new",
>>> +                                     opts->branch_exists
>>> +                                             ? " and reset"
>>> +                                             : opts->new_branch ? " a new" : "",
>
> Strange - I thought I had this sorted out. Thanks for spotting this.

i tested with next and pu and both tips had the same (confusing) message.

>> Maybe it would be clearer to write
>>
>>        opts->new_branch ? " a new"
>>                : opts->branch_exists ? " and reset"
>>                : "",
>>
>> to emphasize that this is a list of condition/result pairs?
>
> We could do with some parentheses - here's my take:
>
>        fprintf(stderr, "Switched to%s branch '%s'\n",
>                (opts->branch_exists ? " and reset" :
>                        (opts->new_branch ? " a new" : "")),
>                new->name);

that's not really for me to decide, but i'm fine with either version

cheers

-- 
typed with http://neo-layout.org
myFtPhp -- visit http://myftphp.sf.net -- v. 0.4.7 released!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]