Modify description file to say what this file is
PATCH 1/6 Modify description file to say what this file is
A lot of people see this message for the first time on the gitweb interface, where there is no clue as to what 'this file' means.
--- templates/hooks--update.sample | 5 +++-- templates/this--description | 2 +- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
templates/hooks--update.sample +3 -2
@@ -43,10 +43,11 @@ allowdeletetag=$(git config --bool hooks.allowdeletetag) # check for no description projectdesc=$(sed -e '1q' "$GIT_DIR/description") -if [ -z "$projectdesc" -o "$projectdesc" = "Unnamed repository; edit this file to name it for gitweb." ]; then +case $projectdesc in "Unnamed repository;"*|'') echo "*** Project description file hasn't been set" >&2 exit 1 -fi + ;; +esac # --- Check types # if $newrev is 0000...0000, it's a commit to delete a ref.
templates/this--description +1 -1
@@ -1 +1 @@ -Unnamed repository; edit this file to name it for gitweb. +Unnamed repository; edit this file 'description' to name the repository
Signature · 1 line
1.6.2.rc1.3.g7d31b.dirty
[PATCH 1/6] Modify description file to say what this file is
Looks good.
[PATCH 2/6] Google has renamed the imap folder
Jeff already pointed out an obvious thinko; I could fix-up locally (just ask).
[PATCH 3/6] Improve error message for branching an existing branch
The extra sentence is useless noise to annoy users and make them shout "none of your business!" back to git.
I would probably get this error message "already exists." more from forgetting to say "-f" in this sequence:
$ git branch -f pu next
$ git checkout pu
$ sh rebuild-pu-scriptto rebuild pu on top of updated next, and "did you mean to checkout?" misses the mark by a kilometer.
[PATCH 4/6] Improve error message for git-filter-branch
Looks good, with Sverre's rewording would be better, which I could locally squash in. Needs signoff, which I could locally forge (just ask to fix-up and forge).
[PATCH 5/6] Change output "error: " to "Error: " etc
Jeff is right, and the patch is wrong.
[PATCH 6/6] Mention to the user that they can reorder commits
The placement of the new message does not feel right, as adding anything near "If you remove ... WILL BE LOST" will cloud out that message which is more important.
I think it should come near or perhaps even before Commands, if we were to add anything here.
But I am afraid that the proposed new message will hurt the clueless users more than it would help them.
The cheat-sheet at the top is not for learning what the command can do for the first time. It is there to remind people (who already have general idea on what can be done) how exactly the commands are spelled. If somebody does not even know that the purpose of rebase-i is to amend and resequence, he will more likely destroy his history by blindly using the command without knowing what is going on, than making a lucky guess.
For that reason, a more appropriate line to add, if we were to add anything, might be:
# s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit
#
+# If you do not know what is going on, remove everything and exit the editor! +#
# If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST.
# However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.
2009/2/19 Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>:
Quoted 60 lines
[PATCH 1/6] Modify description file to say what this file is
Looks good.
[PATCH 2/6] Google has renamed the imap folder
Jeff already pointed out an obvious thinko; I could fix-up locally (just ask).
[PATCH 3/6] Improve error message for branching an existing branch
The extra sentence is useless noise to annoy users and make them shout "none of your business!" back to git.
I would probably get this error message "already exists." more from forgetting to say "-f" in this sequence:
$ git branch -f pu next $ git checkout pu $ sh rebuild-pu-scriptto rebuild pu on top of updated next, and "did you mean to checkout?" misses the mark by a kilometer.
[PATCH 4/6] Improve error message for git-filter-branch
Looks good, with Sverre's rewording would be better, which I could locally squash in. Needs signoff, which I could locally forge (just ask to fix-up and forge).
[PATCH 5/6] Change output "error: " to "Error: " etc
Jeff is right, and the patch is wrong.
[PATCH 6/6] Mention to the user that they can reorder commits
The placement of the new message does not feel right, as adding anything near "If you remove ... WILL BE LOST" will cloud out that message which is more important.
I think it should come near or perhaps even before Commands, if we were to add anything here.
But I am afraid that the proposed new message will hurt the clueless users more than it would help them.
The cheat-sheet at the top is not for learning what the command can do for the first time. It is there to remind people (who already have general idea on what can be done) how exactly the commands are spelled. If somebody does not even know that the purpose of rebase-i is to amend and resequence, he will more likely destroy his history by blindly using the command without knowing what is going on, than making a lucky guess.
For that reason, a more appropriate line to add, if we were to add anything, might be:
# s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit #
Review
Quoted 4 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+# If you do not know what is going on, remove everything and exit the editor! +# # If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST. # However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.
Junio,
Thanks - I like everything you said. Could you go ahead and commit
the accepted ones, with all the fix ups mentioned?
Thanks!
JohnFlux
Hi Junio,
Did you commit my patches? I don't see them yet in git.git ?
John Tapsell
2009/2/19 Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>:
Quoted 64 lines
[PATCH 1/6] Modify description file to say what this file is
Looks good.
[PATCH 2/6] Google has renamed the imap folder
Jeff already pointed out an obvious thinko; I could fix-up locally (just ask).
[PATCH 3/6] Improve error message for branching an existing branch
The extra sentence is useless noise to annoy users and make them shout "none of your business!" back to git.
I would probably get this error message "already exists." more from forgetting to say "-f" in this sequence:
$ git branch -f pu next $ git checkout pu $ sh rebuild-pu-scriptto rebuild pu on top of updated next, and "did you mean to checkout?" misses the mark by a kilometer.
[PATCH 4/6] Improve error message for git-filter-branch
Looks good, with Sverre's rewording would be better, which I could locally squash in. Needs signoff, which I could locally forge (just ask to fix-up and forge).
[PATCH 5/6] Change output "error: " to "Error: " etc
Jeff is right, and the patch is wrong.
[PATCH 6/6] Mention to the user that they can reorder commits
The placement of the new message does not feel right, as adding anything near "If you remove ... WILL BE LOST" will cloud out that message which is more important.
I think it should come near or perhaps even before Commands, if we were to add anything here.
But I am afraid that the proposed new message will hurt the clueless users more than it would help them.
The cheat-sheet at the top is not for learning what the command can do for the first time. It is there to remind people (who already have general idea on what can be done) how exactly the commands are spelled. If somebody does not even know that the purpose of rebase-i is to amend and resequence, he will more likely destroy his history by blindly using the command without knowing what is going on, than making a lucky guess.
For that reason, a more appropriate line to add, if we were to add anything, might be:
# s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit #
(quoted diff) +2
-0+# If you do not know what is going on, remove everything and exit the editor! +## If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST. # However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.
Quoted 2 lines · John Tapsell
Hi Junio,
Did you commit my patches? I don't see them yet in git.git ?
Try looking in 'next', which is where new patches cook before going to master (especially now, as we are right in the middle of release freeze on master).
git log --author=John.Tapsell origin/next
-Peff
Quoted 2 lines · John Tapsell
Hi Junio,
Did you commit my patches? I don't see them yet in git.git ?
Please look for them in the 'next' branch.
Patches that came after -rc1 are at best queued in 'next' for post 1.6.2. The only exceptions are critical and obvious fixes, and fixes to regressions introduced since 1.6.1.