2 ms·
If something this natural requires several lines of bash, something is just not right. Maybe branches should go sorted by default, either chronologically or top
by gritzko 8mo ago
If something this natural requires several lines of bash, something is just not right. Maybe branches should go sorted by default, either chronologically or topologically? git's LoC budget is 20x LevelDBs or 30% of PostgreSQL or 3 SQLites. It must be able to do these things out of the box, isn't it?
https://replicated.wiki/blog/partII.html https://replicated.wiki/blog/partII.html
- cloudfudge 8mo ago"too many lines of bash" and "lines of code" seem like very strange metrics to use to form these types of opinions.
- 1718627440 8mo agoYeah "too many lines of bash" is like "too many clicks needed". Actually since there are aliases, it's more like "too many clicks needed to add it to favourites and then it needs a single click"
- rtpg 8mo agoI used to think this but spending some time learning about xargs (hell even for loops) makes me feel like this is trivial enough to stuff somewhere. Lots of people have mentioned awkward use cases where decisions have to be made. A built in command would have to confront those and it might not be easy
- computerfriend 8mo agoBranches can be sorted. git config branch.sort ...