On Fri, Jan 25 2019, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > I have a remote named "jch" and it has a branch with the same name. And > fetch.output is set to "compact". Fetching this remote looks like this > > From https://github.com/gitster/git > + eb7fd39f6b...835363af2f jch -> */jch (forced update) > 6f11fd5edb..59b12ae96a nd/config-move-to -> jch/* > * [new branch] nd/diff-parseopt -> jch/* > * [new branch] nd/the-index-final -> jch/* > > Notice that the local side of branch jch starts with "*" instead of > ending with it like the rest. It's not exactly wrong. It just looks > weird. > > This patch changes the find-and-replace code a bit to try finding prefix > first before falling back to strstr() which finds a substring from left > to right. Now we have something less OCD > > From https://github.com/gitster/git > + eb7fd39f6b...835363af2f jch -> jch/* (forced update) > 6f11fd5edb..59b12ae96a nd/config-move-to -> jch/* > * [new branch] nd/diff-parseopt -> jch/* > * [new branch] nd/the-index-final -> jch/* This patch works great. The existence of fetch.output=compact had somehow passed me by until a few weeks ago, now using it and it looks great. Thanks. Just using this as a bounce-off point for a related discussion, one case where I still see duplicates is things like: From github.com:git/git a7da99ff1b..28d0017056 next -> origin/* + e911e946c2...9cc6aca6e9 pu -> origin/* (forced update) a7da99ff1b..28d0017056 refs/pull/412/head -> origin/pull/412/head + 1dbcd06490...6b1f08d3ef refs/pull/412/merge -> origin/pull/412/merge (forced update) + e911e946c2...9cc6aca6e9 refs/pull/444/head -> origin/pull/444/head (forced update) + 8131760e3b...ed5bbbbcec refs/pull/444/merge -> origin/pull/444/merge (forced update) I.e. the duplicate strings for the "pull" namespace I'm fetching. Now, there's no room with the current syntax to represent that unambiguously, I started to patch it, but wasn't sure I liked the syntax I came up with. This is also one of the rare cases where bikeshedding the idea can productively done without a patch so I thought I'd start that discussion first. If we had this: From github.com:git/git a7da99ff1b..28d0017056 next -> origin/* + e911e946c2...9cc6aca6e9 pu -> origin/* (forced update) a7da99ff1b..28d0017056 refs/[pull/412/head] -> origin/* + 1dbcd06490...6b1f08d3ef refs/[pull/412/merge] -> origin/* (forced update) + e911e946c2...9cc6aca6e9 refs/[pull/444/head] -> origin/* (forced update) + 8131760e3b...ed5bbbbcec refs/[pull/444/merge] -> origin/* (forced update) We could de-duplicate such output. I.e. used [] as "capture" delimiters for the subsequent "*" since "[" and "]" aren't valid in ref names (but "()" and "{}" are!). Or maybe more generally using it consistently throughout, also for next/pu: From github.com:git/git a7da99ff1b..28d0017056 [next] -> origin/* + e911e946c2...9cc6aca6e9 [pu] -> origin/* (forced update) a7da99ff1b..28d0017056 refs/[pull/412/head] -> origin/* [...] The things that suck the most about this are that you can no longer copy/paste the ref on the LHS as-is, and that it'll only show up in rare cases, so it'll probably confuse even experienced users. What do you think?
