Gabriel Augendre: 1
show ref in title
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
My opinion is to always display it, in order to be explicit.
For reference, here's the (short) thread discussing the idea:
https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss/%3CZUiH2lSmaFraZh3g%40dj3ntoo%3E
Gave this a quick test drive. I really like the idea. I am honestly also
slightly undecided about showing the default branch (as doing so would
be slightly inconsistent with the rest of the UI), but do not have a
strong opinion on that.
What I do not like, however, is the usage of the preposition "on". What
is being added here is not a branch name, but a git ref in general. That
may be a branch name, but it might also be a tag, or a raw revision. For
the latter two, "on" does not make sense. Given the generic nature of a
ref I have hard time proposing a better proposition, so how about we
just put it in parenthesis without any preposition at all?
Maybe a native english speaker can weigh in here. If anything, I suppose
"at" would be more "correct", but it does sound slightly awkward for
branch names?
FWIW, git status uses 'on branch' and 'at commit/tag'. So I'd say your
gut feeling is correct here.
Cheers,
Conrad
Maybe "in"?
Hey,
just to move this forward, because I think it's quite useful: could you
kindly submit a v2 that uses "(ref: NAME)" instead of "on NAME"? That's
generic enough to be correct in all cases and improvements can be worked
out later if needed.
Cheers,
Conrad