Kevin Ballard <kevin@xxxxxx> writes:
> On Dec 10, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> ...
>> d414638 Merge branch 'rj/msvc-fix' into pu
>> ...
>> 1b2ea00 Merge branch 'mg/cvsimport' into pu
>> c6d41f4 Merge branch 'nd/maint-relative' into pu
>> 81f395e Merge branch 'ab/i18n' into pu
>> 9f5471f Merge branch 'nd/setup' into pu
>> 06f74a4 Merge branch 'yd/dir-rename' into pu
>> d8a2ec8 Merge branch 'en/object-list-with-pathspec' into pu
>>
>> After looking at this output, do you really want to say ":nth(2)/nd/"
>> instead of 9f5471f?
>
> Yep. Doing the latter either requires me to swap over to my mouse, copy the sha1,
> and paste in, or requires me to peer at the sha1 and re-type enough characters.
> It's a lot easier to just glance at that list, realize the 2nd one is the one I
> want, and type `git merge :^{nth(2)/nd/}`. It may not necessarily be faster than
> retyping the sha1, but it's a lot less prone to transcription errors.
What you said heavily depends on the way in which I give names to the
branches, and also on the fact that "nd/" happens to be not very common
prefix at this moment. If the branches were named without nd/ part and
still be unique, you would not be arguing for nth(2) at all to begin with.
So it is dubious that your argument is convincing.
--
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