From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22875 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2013 17:14:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 31294 Received: (qmail 6327 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2013 17:14:13 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _netblocks.google.com designates 209.85.210.170 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=GiPr4GOzDqJvwE+hMlhu0p/L6NWOzBa5wbNcm6eW9sk=; b=j8A9KdXFVrTvW98zxiF+lXmL7AVFC4e+TaYZ/N5JJhEiXDEhjJ3MkTLoG0SlhZSo+m dYBlx6ViQa0jeGWxF9T6EDRo9LrPz3UAs5C502QKVAHpYRv+ffOiqp6S4YK+u2AzpgYF d+2+mfqUJ27piyEw8C93rUJcHXa/8Ldo1H9WFD3C0tbsHvxz2LBowYXnj1ksnlzYcNpl dmi1EnDGn7GyWMe7hF52aAxOiPjbHc+UzNFAq5Q1L4i7nWnZ9irpd1H03VV6g+Z54BlT 4zE+ZORp7DkDekUdv8CrhOM9En4DnIk9WY7eaZ6j9m34Mpss//I1UGhTcbr7GyMbMI0W dgZQ== X-Received: by 10.50.119.102 with SMTP id kt6mr11936009igb.12.1366478045948; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:14:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87zjwt5jkw.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> References: <1366462573-15545-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <1366462573-15545-3-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com> <87zjwt5jkw.fsf@ft.bewatermyfriend.org> From: Ramkumar Ramachandra Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 22:43:24 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Completion/Unix/Command/_git: fix shortlog completer To: Frank Terbeck Cc: Nikolai Weibull , ZSH Workers , Frank Terbeck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 [-CC: Clint Adams; his email address seems to be bouncing email] Frank Terbeck wrote: > So, do we take this patch as well or do we want to spend time on > fleshing out the helper function? Both would work for me, to be > honest. :) You can apply this as-is if you like: I'll submit a patch factoring out this code into a fresh function soon. In the meantime, can someone tell me how to test _git quickly? I don't want to have to re-compile, install, and start a new shell to test a small change. Besides, there are plenty of other related problems. Off the top of my head: 1. There's only some small logic for invoking __git_committish_range. What happens to other kinds of revision specs? Think completions for stuff like :/quuxery, pu@{1}^2~300, ..next, bar@{2 days ago}, v1.7-679-g3bee7fb etc. It might be too hard to support everything, but we can certainly improve over just a .. range. 2. log, shortlog, and blame should use rev-spec-or-file (a generalized version of commit-range-or-file). 3. reset, checkout, and grep should use treeish-or-file. Thanks.