Hi Dscho, On 06/05/2018 14:10, 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? > > I think that is just turning the problem from `branch` to `diff`. > > Of course, we have precedent with diff-index and diff-files. Except that > they don't auto-complete (because they are low-level commands) and I > *would* like the subcommand discussed in this here patch series to > auto-complete. Yeah, I did suspect it might be something like this (those other ones not auto-completing, where we do want it here), thanks for elaborating. > I think Todd's idea to shift it from a full-blown builtin to a cmdmode > of `branch` makes tons of sense. I don`t know, I still find it a bit strange that in order to "diff something", you go to "something" and tell it to "diff itself" - not because it`s a weird concept (OOP, anyone? :]), but because we already have "diff" command that can accept different things, thus just teaching it to accept additional "something" (branch, in this case), seems more natural (to me) - "branch diff" being just another "diff" mode of operation. What about that side thought you left out from my original message, making it `git diff --branch` instead? But if "branch diff" is considered to be too special-cased mode of "diff" so that supporting it from `diff` itself would make it feel awkward in both usage and maintenance (in terms of many other regular `diff` specific options being unsupported), I guess I would understand having it outside `diff` altogether (and implemented as proposed `git branch --diff`, or something)... for the time being, at least :) Regards, Buga
