From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 940761F54E for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:25:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="qvAL40lF"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231642AbiHPHZS (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2022 03:25:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50090 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231571AbiHPHYj (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Aug 2022 03:24:39 -0400 Received: from mail-ua1-x92b.google.com (mail-ua1-x92b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15CA0172B87 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua1-x92b.google.com with SMTP id cd25so3577621uab.8 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=9BTD3xQ0jncVp7KLCbbNugLkb+arMQz57nG7Mkz0PzY=; b=qvAL40lFgspFdnAE1r7Wsn2gLuenPNnSSu7aCZiyYCd52/K/RXpd7pYlJjTy5rJv3e 8+AqQZWSsDtticPumhRvoAXdIHdYpXQPU89v4uAAlyOIWwH9UKUK+Gi51boYXZDpbS2d izCVqn/CbzwJnUctuEkfxF8oDd0tKOWDrhzgXXFytWEpz+otlf8rdDWungdktoYm3ivA daEi6X6h7mD9bxRAoaLc+yfNfk2NizbbIpfmP58IBRtbyodlSY0rOZTl5sKYQCxzd5Ct ELWgKOQeQq4LlngtuLTqmZWbgmHJWp4zIQBE1Yh2nYV+87fcW1fYgtAUFNADOQlGDPDg vRsA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=9BTD3xQ0jncVp7KLCbbNugLkb+arMQz57nG7Mkz0PzY=; b=pmyAzV1OyYRmrG772JNsGCLVuStRS4dwf0c+3jMHFaBTlX1qMfphmhBEe7YceLuvKk +zVVoSoNrpTwCppsRGf8ByTPGZ+ylmDMmsG01CI7k0T1hOyrdCoJ2ZOJMchaTAfFPBuj BCe96QeD2k2FAhRDTrBjos+1Jn8JEhpqPDYpYYwTu4dYWogowVKnR3Hwt3972GLOcE9i sZfReR6p6hX4aCYwRKAgKQMI+4Vo0kc1Pk1pvkndznhA/u+oa5UnPd2gM44G8pM0jUge SlgTL2OHAgLZtrvoEdmnslEAmi48G/zHpD42dI9j5nqeWJqQYLMtFiwZAMKXRWyosk1q 1Wyw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0juS1/jaBbZDheUsUy6fCYKx8afs0ywLjZ/d55Ls+ow9tSr7AZ kCrjE+SSwRNy5mgDIHUibJTbcIPYk59k1BEDHKN/Zl25CwU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6diVKPMp6K46o9GeS7BZdSJ9qZHvDf2yw3HEfZeODZTZmtZulv2nTj3u8mr9WQkDQC2cdGk1OmFpqw4XNDXEI= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:76d6:0:b0:38e:c357:6ecb with SMTP id w22-20020ab076d6000000b0038ec3576ecbmr7748392uaq.2.1660621004427; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 20:36:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Justin Donnelly Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 23:36:08 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] git-prompt: show presence of unresolved conflicts at command prompt To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Junio C Hamano , Justin Donnelly via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , newren@gmail.com, phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 8:50 AM Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Justin Donnelly writes: > > > > > I hope this is against protocol/etiquette, but after some initial > > > feedback from Junio, I haven't gotten any more. I wasn't sure if > > > nobody had seen the patch, or if there just wasn't any interest. > > > > It probably is a bit of both. I personally did not see much point > > in adding the long "conflicts" marker to the shell prompt (I did > > worry about possible complaints by end users triggered by seeing > > them suddenly without asking, which was why I commented on the > > patch) and I was waiting for interested folks to speak out. > > Speaking for myself, I was too busy elsewhere. But now that I looked over > the patch, I think it is fine. My only feedback is that it would be wise > to only add a single test case because that is plenty enough (after all, > it validates the `ls-files --unmerged` call and not the `cherry-pick` > code) and it is unnecessary to waste the electricity on additional tests > cases (even if somebody else foots the bill, it would do well for all of > us to start being more mindful about energy consumption). That makes sense. I'll get started on a re-roll to just have a single test that focuses specifically on the conflict indicator. > > Ciao, > Dscho Thanks, Justin