On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted text
> Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
> 
> > I like this idea a lot. I'd actually also like it for commit, although (1) 
> > and (3a) obviously don't happen there. It would help to combat my tendency 
> > to forget to push when I mean to.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >> +/*
> >> + * We really should allow cb_data... Yuck
> >> + */
> >> +static const char *branch_name;
> >> +static int branch_name_len;
> >> +static char *found_remote;
> >> +static char *found_merge;
> >> +static int read_branch_config(const char *var, const char *value)
> >> +{
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I think you want branch_get(), which handles all the config file stuff up 
> > to approximately here:
> 
> Fixups are very much welcomed.  This was more or less a proof of
> concept.

I'm also in part worried about the lack of publicity "struct branch" has 
gotten; it would have saved you having to write 64 of 136 lines, so it's 
worth you knowing about.

quoted text
> >> +	if (show_log) {
> >> +		const char *args[32];
> >> +		int ac;
> >> +
> >> +		ac = 0;
> >> +		args[ac++] = "log";
> >> +		args[ac++] = "--pretty=oneline";
> >> +		args[ac++] = "--abbrev-commit";
> >> +		args[ac++] = "--left-right";
> >> +		args[ac++] = "--boundary";
> >> +		args[ac++] = symmetric;
> >> +		args[ac++] = "--";
> >> +		args[ac] = NULL;
> >> +
> >> +		run_command_v_opt(args, RUN_GIT_CMD);
> >
> > We really should be able to do this in-process, although I'm not sure if 
> > we really can.
> 
> The code runs in_merge_bases() twice, between our branch head
> and the base, but if we really care about the performance, we
> can have a single merge-base traversal and the resulting object
> pool will have everything necessary to emit the log output
> without a separate traversal.
> 
> Because I think that is reasonably easy, I just did not bother
> to.  This is not a performance critical piece of code anyway.
> 
> One thing I thought about was to limit the output to latest N
> entries from both sides.  That would also be easier to implement
> if we do a single merge-base traversal and reuse the result.

Yeah, the real advantage to doing it in-process is being able to give a 
particularly useful overview. Also, I think spawning a pager for it is 
distracting.

I've also got a change to make it do this report for "git checkout" and 
"git checkout HEAD" so you can find out if the current branch needs 
anything, but I want to look at it again while not so sleepy before 
sending it, and also write some tests.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html