Hi Dscho, On 05/05/2018 23:57, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > This builtin does not do a whole lot so far, apart from showing a > > > usage that is oddly similar to that of `git tbdiff`. And for a > > > good reason: the next commits will turn `branch-diff` into a > > > full-blown replacement for `tbdiff`. > > > > One minor point about the name: will it become annoying as a tab > > completion conflict with git-branch? > > I did mention this in the commit message of 18/18: > > Without this patch, we would only complete the `branch-diff` part but > not the options and other arguments. > > This of itself may already be slightly disruptive for well-trained > fingers that assume that `git bra<TAB>ori<TAB>mas<TAB>` would expand to > `git branch origin/master`, as we now no longer automatically append a > space after completing `git branch`: this is now ambiguous. > > > It feels really petty complaining about the name, but I just want > > to raise the point, since it will never be easier to change than > > right now. > > I do hear you. Especially since I hate `git cherry` every single > time that I try to tab-complete `git cherry-pick`. > > > (And no, I don't really have another name in mind; I'm just > > wondering if "subset" names like this might be a mild annoyance in > > the long run). > > They totally are, and if you can come up with a better name, I am > really interested in changing it before this hits `next`, even. I gave this just a quick glance so might be I`m missing something obvious or otherwise well-known here, bur why not `diff-branch` instead? >From user interface perspective, I would (personally) rather expect a command that does "diff of branches" to belong to "diff family" of commands (just operating on branches, instead of "branch" command knowing to "diff itself"), and I see we already have `diff-files`, `diff-index` and `diff-tree`, for what that`s worth. Heck, I might even expect something like `git diff --branch ...` to work, but I guess that is yet a different matter :) Thanks, Buga
