On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I like diff-branch, though I suppose that also conflicts with diff too. Thanks, Jake
