From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF54820FD1 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 23:22:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752348AbcGAXWe (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:22:34 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57143 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752320AbcGAXWe convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:22:34 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C77526F53; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:21:52 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=g+EazkqSxH+a 13U+/3ewTF2+A9o=; b=Y+XgWl5BkHEBNWvcXDATbVBmjCJ4bHiPnc5jL+ZJxTsJ RMMR+gdEU2EeZZ5+Lplq5TtzjkBTwV1VvqY9XmW8a5YMxCFX44NCntUBtu1Ja511 FNlqx98NH3flfOkw8MKAOJ+wCENa9McccPtx8Nu0ieyDDYtg1nac02DIWhd/b/E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=kGeRe0 iBuHJh6G2RiiFoZZpp/+EkDAbFcGIxWK/Rvv9Ix5wSLHDerE6kD8zISs0eUzIiOS vTmGv55jpmajzFmG8HANl4mor4K9E0rI5X8xjwEsA3aQwwAwUCQL4FMe885F4A2w sDmjlZ3xCvTYCSS8jbdliSEszqin97GT40QT4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9543526F52; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:21:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2221326F4E; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 19:21:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41j?= Duy Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine , Jeff King , marcnarc@xiplink.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Better ref summary alignment in "git fetch" References: <20160626055810.26960-1-pclouds@gmail.com> <20160701160331.29252-1-pclouds@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 16:21:50 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160701160331.29252-1-pclouds@gmail.com> (=?utf-8?B?Ik5n?= =?utf-8?B?dXnhu4VuIFRow6FpIE5n4buNYw==?= Duy"'s message of "Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:03:26 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 97B17028-3FE2-11E6-8659-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes: > I'm not sure if we should bring back "{ -> origin/}foo" format. I can > do it if someone still wants it. > ... > +In compact output mode, specified with configuration variable > +fetch.output, if either entire `` or `` is found in the > +other string, it will be substituted with `*` in the other string. For > +example, `master -> origin/master` becomes `master -> origin/*`. What is the desired property we would want to see in the end result of this series (or possible replacement of it)? Easier to read by humans? Cut-and-paste friendliness? Alignment? I think the largest objection against "{ -> origin/}master" was that it wasn't cut-and-paste ready. There might have been other attempts during the rerolls leading to this v5, but I have to say that what we ended up with, "master -> origin/*", is no more cut-and-paste friendly than "{ -> origin/}master". I personally do not care much about cut-and-paste friendliness, and I see the cover-letter is titled with "alignment", but if the alignment is the sole issue, I would have to say "master -> origin/*" is such a great improvement over "{ -> origin/}master". So, I do not see strong reason to reject this, but I am not enthused by the topic, either.