On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:09:17PM -0500, Brandon Casey wrote:
>
>> Make it more pleasant to read about a branch deletion by adding "was".
>> Jeff King suggested this, and I ignored it. He was right.
>
> Heh. While I am tempted to dance in a circle shouting "I told you so", I
> actually find that after getting used to it, I do not mind the current
> output. ;)
>
> Out of curiosity, what prompted your change of heart? Did you hear from
> somebody who found it confusing, or did you just change your mind?
I just changed my mind.
My original opinion was based on the output from 'git stash drop'. It
has the full sha1 in the message and looks like:
$git stash drop
Dropped refs/stash@{0} (58fa28fddd951deb782e3300b2d059f95544f6f1)
I like it. I like the full sha1.
For some reason, the partial sha1 in the branch delete message irritated me.
$ git branch -d mybranch
Deleted branch mybranch (455f59b).
I don't think it was because it was a partial sha1. Maybe it was
because the message seemed to imply that what was referenced by the
sha1 was being deleted. The branch is just a pointer, so deleting it
does not mean that what it pointed at was lost in any way. I think
adding "was" makes it seem more like a pointer to me. Or maybe it has
something to do with my mother, any psychology majors in the audience?
:)
-brandon
--
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
