Your comments

Cancel fetch queue

I usually select a bunch of repos and hit Fetch.  Sometimes, I want to cancel the queue.

Hope this ticket covers this case too.

I found an easier way.  A simple bash script like this in a pre-commit hook would produce the same weird symbols:

#!/bin/sh
#
# An example hook script to verify what is about to be committed.
# Called by "git commit" with no arguments. The hook should
# exit with non-zero status after issuing an appropriate message if
# it wants to stop the commit.
#
# To enable this hook, rename this file to "pre-commit".

RED='\033[0;31m'
NC='\033[0m' # No Color
printf "I ${RED}love${NC} Stack Overflow\n" exit 1

A bash-like window in SmartGit would produce the required color-coding and would be a bonus.

Sure.

  • https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop/
  • I'm not sure if the hook requires the full installation of the tools.  I think probably not, but see the "Running From Source" on getting set up if needed.  It's just a few tools to install.
    • Install node.js version 10
    • Install Yarn.
    • To replicate the error in the screenshot, remove the "$FlowFixMe" comment in "ui/component/app/view,jsx", and do a regular commit.             

    Not sure to understand why you want one commit of your local master to be sent to a dedicated branch on remote

    The focus is not about workflow, but to expose the Push To functionality to more scenarios.  The reason has been explained, but perhaps the following example that doesn't involve master can help you understand?

       [1] (experiment-branch)

       [2]

       [3]

       [4]

       [5] <remote: master>


       "experiment-branch" is totally local, no tracking.  But I want to send 3 and 4 to others to experiment, without me leaving away from 1.

    why not have this commit in a feature branch ?

    From a git-level point of view, there is no difference, right?

    • I could have easily named that branch at 3 to "feature/hey-jason" in my video.  
    • If I were to do it your way, I would have to create a feature branch, check out feature, push, and go back to master to resume work.  My approach reached the same destination faster without ever leaving my master (no files are touched to cause a recompilation).  The key is here is "quick".

    Yup, knew that :)

    This is for other remote destinations, which is what "Push To" is for anyway.  It's just cutting down one step of creating the temp branch.

    "don't want that branch locally"

    I don't understand the question. Perhaps you missed my overall intention. I'm trying to quickly push a branch that's pointing to a prior commit to remote for various reasons (e.g. backup, passing to another person as starting point, etc,)

    Here's a video to explain it:

    (sorry for the screen cut off.  I basically did:  (1) Add fdsfdsa (2) Push To from fdsfdsa (3) Delete fdsfdsa)

    I think that is still inline with the "meaning" of Push To, so doesn't clash with the UX. It seems weird that we need a temporary branch initiate the "Push To" action from the context menu.

    Adding a filter text box to trim down the selection is one option, similar to Gmail's "add label" popup.  I guess we have to move away from dropdown if we implement this.

    I think the issue with userecho is that good ideas get buried over time and never gets a chance for people to vote on.  If only there's an AI algo to randomly bump up old ideas to the top to get some visibility.

    Here's the use case:

    • Checked all branches to have a clear picture of current repo state.
    • Incrementally remove branches from the graph to narrow down my investigation.
    • Currently, have to switch the Branches view to flat (from Grouped), then search the branch that I want to hide ... <--- would like to simplify this step.

    I don't want to delete it, I just want to quickly uncheck it and hide it from the graph.