On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. How about interdiff? -- Duy
