Hi,
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
That is brutal. First shot, then cut.
> Johannes Schindelin venit, vidit, dixit 20.03.2009 10:29:
> >
> > Often, it is quite interesting to inspect the branch tracked by a
> > given branch. This patch introduces a nice notation to get at the
> > tracked branch: 'BEL<branch>' can be used to access that tracked
> > branch.
> >
> > A special shortcut 'BEL' refers to the branch tracked by the current
> > branch.
> >
> > Suggested by Pasky and Shawn.
> >
> > This patch extends the function introduced to handle the nth-last
> > branch (via the {-<n>} notation); therefore that function name was
> > renamed to something more general.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
>
> I guess you beat me to it then, which is fine.
I had it ready yesterday! But the real problem is not addressed by your
patch, either: '%<branch>' is a legal branch name.
I briefly considered <branch>^{tracked}, but
- the ^{} codepath does not try to substitute branch _names_, so we'd have
to duplicate that ^{} detection, and,
- it is really cumbersome to write.
> But haven't you seen my note about the failing test either? The code
> below tests with branches which track local branches. merge and remote
> is set for the branch in question ("tracking"), it's just that remote is
> ".". It seems that the remote.c code does not set up merge info for
> these branches.
I have seen it, it's just not my itch, and I am busy enough as it is.
> <Goes to figure out how to enter BEL...>
Ctrl-v Ctrl-g
Ciao,
Dscho
--
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
