Hi
On 31/10/2019 08:26, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 30 Oct 2019, Emily Shaffer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:30:23PM -0700, Matthew DeVore wrote:
From: Matthew DeVore <matvore@xxxxxxxxx>
[...]
In addition, I would think that the introduction of ephemeral refs
should deserve its own patch. Such ephemeral refs might come in handy
for more things than just `xl` (or whatever better name we find).
The design of such ephemeral refs is thoroughly interesting, too.
I agree the ephemeral refs are interesting and could be really useful
One very obvious question is whether you want these refs to be
worktree-specific or not. I would tend to answer "yes" to that question.
If we go for a per-terminal namespace as you suggest below I'm not sure
if we want/need them to be per worktree as well. I don't have a clear
idea how I'd want to use ephemeral refs if I changed worktree but kept
working in the same terminal.
Further, another obvious question is what to do with those refs after a
while. They are _clearly_ intended to be ephemeral, i.e. they should
just vanish after a reasonably short time. Which raises the question:
what is "reasonably short" in this context? We would probably want to
come up with a good default and then offer a config setting to change
it.
Maybe keep them around for a couple of days? Even that might be longer
than we need.
Another important aspect is the naming. The naming schema you chose
(`h/<counter>`) is short-and-sweet, and might very well be in use
already, for totally different purposes. It would be a really good idea
to open that schema to allow for avoiding clashes with already-existing
refs.
A better alternative might be to choose a naming schema that cannot
clash with existing refs because it would not make for valid ref names.
I had a look at the ref name validation, and `^<counter>` might be a
better naming schema to begin with: `^1` is not a valid ref name, for
example.
That's an interesting idea, it's short and wont tread on anyone's toes.
Side note: why `h/`? I really tried to think about possible motivations
and came up empty.
Another aspect that I think should be considered: why limit these
ephemeral refs to `git xl`? I cannot count how often I look through
some `git log <complicated-options> -- <sophisticated-magic-refspecs>`
to find a certain commit and then need to reference it. I usually move
my hand to move the mouse pointer and double click, then Shift-Insert
(which is awkward on this here keyboard because Insert is Fn+Delete, so
I cannot do that with one hand), and I usually wish for some better way.
A better way might be to introduce an option for generating and
displaying such ephemeral refs, in my case it would be good to have a
config setting to do that automatically for every `git log` call that
uses the pager, i.e. is interactive.
Having them as a feature of the rev listing machinery rather than
specific to a particular command sounds like a good way to go.
Finally, I could imagine that in this context, we would love to have
refs that are purely intended for interactive use, and therefore it
would make sense to try to bind them to the process ID of the process
calling `git`, i.e. the interactive shell. That way, when I have two
terminal windows, they would "own" their separate ephemeral refs.
I like that idea, though I think it should probably be based around
getsid() rather than getppid() (I'm not sure how that translates to windows)
Best Wishes
Phillip
The test cases show non-trivial output which can be used to get an idea
for what the command is good for, though it doesn't capture the
coloring.
The primary goals of this command are:
a) deduce what the user wants to see based on what they haven't pushed
upstream yet
b) show the active branches spatially rather than as a linear list (as
in "git branch")
c) allow the user to easily refer to commits that appeared in the
output
I considered making the h/# tags stable across invocations such that a
particular hash will only be tagged with a different number if ~100
other hashes are tagged since the hash was last tagged. I didn't
actually implement it this way, instead opting for always re-numbering
the hashes on each invocation. This means the hash number is
predictable based on the position the hash appears in the output, which
is probably better that encouraging users to memorize hash numbers (or
use them in scripts!).
If you're worried about folks using something like this in a script (and
I would be, given that it's dynamically assigning nicknames to hashes)
then you probably ought to mark it as a porcelain command in
command-list.txt.
I would like to caution against targeting scripts with this. It is too
easy for two concurrently running scripts to stumble over each other.
Scripts should use safer methods that already exist, like grabbing the
hash while looking for a specific pattern (`sed`'s hold space comes to
mind).
Ciao,
Dscho
