Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Spekaing of which, what I'd really appreciate is timestamps associated > with the reflog. That's because the most common time when I've > screwed something up is after doing a "git rebase -i" and so the > reflog has a *huge* number of entries on it, and figuring out which > entry in the reflog is the right one is painful. If could tell at a > glance when each entry of the reflog was created, it would make it a > lot easier to untangle a tree mangled by git rebase -i. Yeah, I completely agree with this one. I've wished for the reflog to be presented in a nicer ui, with humanized timestamps and colors. > Meh; I don't *need* it. But then again, I'm an fairly experienced git > user. The fact that I use guilt without the "guilt/master" safety > feature and have never gotten bitten by it --- in fact I deliberately > publish rewindable branches with a guilt patch series applies speaks > to the fact that I'm pretty experienced at rewindable heads. Oh, and thanks for mentioning guilt: I just learnt about it. > The only reason why I suggested it is because I believe it would be > useful for people with less experience, and perhaps it would help make > rewindable branches less scary, and less subject to a lot of the > fearmongering that you see on the blogosphere. My message was a critique. I'm not denying that the feature may be useful; it's just that we should have a good rationalization of the usecase and design something carefully. > Sure, and if I cared I'd make a git alias to automate this, instead of > depending on finger macros. Yes. My comment was more of question: can --multiple be more than a for loop written in shell? If not, is it worth writing? Are there enough users? Junio mentioned pushurl in the other email: if they're perfect mirrors, won't pushurl suffice? > I create new branches all the time. But they are for my own personal > testing purposes. So it's fairer to say that I rarely *publish* new > branches; I generally stick to the standard set of next, master, > maint, and pu. And part of that is that even publishing this number > of branches is enough to sometimes confuse the e2fsprogs developers > who are pulling from my tree. Just for contrast: I never keep anything locally. I publish as much of my setup as humanly possible so that I'm not tied to one machine. > In general, no, I don't do that, for the reasons stated above --- even > publishing four branches gets to be confusing enough for people who > are looking at my tree. Just publish different branches to different locations? Isn't that why we got triangular workflows? > I'm sure other people and other communities use git differently, so > please insert the standard disclaimer that there's more than one way > to skin a cat. Ofcourse. I believe in being all-inclusive, and not dropping a single feature that has users. -- 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