Message ID | pull.667.git.1592784835441.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | bash-completion: add git-prune into bash completion | expand |
"John Lin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > From: John Lin <johnlinp@gmail.com> > > Sometimes git would suggest the user to run `git prune` when there are > too many unreachable loose objects. It's more user-friendly if we add > git-prune into bash completion. Yes, but it does not suggest all the time, and there is a reason. Most of the time "gc" is more appropriate, but there are narrow cases where "prune" is more appropriate and that is when the users will see suggestion to run "prune". Isn't it too much to type p-r-u-n-e while seeing that message, typing as you read it? I do not think it hurts to complete "git prune", in the sense that we would want to avoid completing potentially destructive operation to those who do not understand the implications, because the command is pretty much benign. But I am not sure it forces users to type too many keystrokes too frequently that it requires a tab completion. I dunno. Will queue for now. Thanks.
Hi Junio, I saw this integrated into master. Thanks. Best, John Lin Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 於 2020年6月23日 週二 上午2:28寫道: > > "John Lin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > > > From: John Lin <johnlinp@gmail.com> > > > > Sometimes git would suggest the user to run `git prune` when there are > > too many unreachable loose objects. It's more user-friendly if we add > > git-prune into bash completion. > > Yes, but it does not suggest all the time, and there is a reason. > Most of the time "gc" is more appropriate, but there are narrow > cases where "prune" is more appropriate and that is when the users > will see suggestion to run "prune". > > Isn't it too much to type p-r-u-n-e while seeing that message, > typing as you read it? > > I do not think it hurts to complete "git prune", in the sense that > we would want to avoid completing potentially destructive operation > to those who do not understand the implications, because the command > is pretty much benign. But I am not sure it forces users to type > too many keystrokes too frequently that it requires a tab > completion. I dunno. > > Will queue for now. > > Thanks.
林自均 <johnlinp@gmail.com> writes: > Hi Junio, > > I saw this integrated into master. Thanks. Thank you for writing the patch.
diff --git a/command-list.txt b/command-list.txt index cbb960c8436..89aa60cde7e 100644 --- a/command-list.txt +++ b/command-list.txt @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ git-pack-redundant plumbinginterrogators git-pack-refs ancillarymanipulators git-parse-remote synchelpers git-patch-id purehelpers -git-prune ancillarymanipulators +git-prune ancillarymanipulators complete git-prune-packed plumbingmanipulators git-pull mainporcelain remote git-push mainporcelain remote