On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It can be useful to refer to commits in remotes based on their configured
> > relationship to local branches. For example, "git log HEAD^[push]..HEAD"
> > would, when pushing is set up, show what hasn't been pushed yet.
>
> Interesting.
>
> What about `git diff master^[push]@{3.days.ago}^{tree} master` ?
>
> Can anyone even understand that? Can Git even understand it?
> As I follow your code I don't think it would, as the ^[push]
> operator seems like it needs to be on the very end of the string,
> and it assumes everything to the left of the ^[ is the branch name.
Ah, but the code actually peels off parts and parses the part under, so
HEAD^[push]^{tree} actually works. However, it doesn't treat HEAD^[push]
as an alias for a branch, so it doesn't find the reflog.
> So I also couldn't phrase that as:
>
> git diff master@{3.days.ago}^[push]^{tree} master
>
> More interesting is just what do you want going on here with the
> reflog query and the ^[push] query. Should the reflog operator apply
> before the ^[push] translation, or after? Or should it depend on
> the order of them in the statement? I can see where you would want
> to look at your local tracking branch for the current branch 3 days
> ago, which might be "HEAD^[push]@{3.days.ago}". But I'm not really
> sure what the meaning of "HEAD@{3.days.ago}^[push]" is. Is that
> the branch that HEAD was on 3 days ago's push branch? Huh? ;-)
Whatever that means, I bet we don't track the necessary information. I
think ^[push] only applies to ref names. But it should probably resolve as
a ref name itself, so that HEAD^[push]@{3.days.ago} would work. Not sure
how to write the code for that, though.
> In general it seems our "operators" are ^{foo} or @{foo}, so I wonder
> why not ^{push}. push is not a valid object type, and probably
> never will be, so peeling the onion back to get to what ^{push}
> means (even though its not an object type) is probably OK.
^{push} and ^{merge} are certainly possible, if the namespace of object
types and the namespace of functions aren't going to overlap. I wasn't
sure if this would be true in general with future additions to both
namespaces.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-
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
