Jeff King <peff <at> peff.net> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:53:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Michael J Gruber <git <at> drmicha.warpmail.net> writes: > > > > > Rather than extending "git branch" any further[*], I suggest a bolder > > > strategy: > > > > > > - unify/merge for-each-ref and pretty formats (and code) as far as possible > > > - leverage that for the list modes of branch and tag > > > > > > That would allow everyone to get their favourite listing, just like for > > > logs. Otherwise it would be very difficult to agree on *the* proper > > > format for an extended branch or tag list. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > [*] I know I'm a sinner, too. > > > > Actually this is not a "bolder" strategy, but the unification has > > been discussed and agreed to be the longer-term direction for quite > > a while, I think. Didn't Peff have this in his "things to do when > > absolutely bored" box? > > Yes. It is not even in my "absolutely bored" box, but rather the "I > would like to work on this but somehow other crap keeps coming up" box.
Is this box public somewhere? > The last blocker I ran into was that we need to unify the "--contains" > implementation for "git tag" and "git branch". If anybody wants to push > this forward, I think that is the best place to start. I can dig up > references if anybody is interested. > Yes, I would be interested in references. I already found something in Junio's leftover bits [1] that seems related: "git tag --contains" should not consider a tag as the anchor point to describe the commit, when it can reach another tag that can also be used to describe the commit. Cf. [2] Regards, Moritz [1] http://git-blame.blogspot.fr/p/leftover-bits.html [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/246381/focus=246423 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
