Bug? Branch names not getting selected properly
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Karthik Manamcheri
May 21, 2012, 2:30:14 PM5/21/12
to git-...@googlegroups.com
Let me explain the bug (?) with an example:
I go to "Actions->Pull". In the dialog box which opens, I have my remote branches listed. When I click on one of the branch names in the list, it doesn't update the name correctly in the text box field. For example, I have a remote branch named blah/foo/test. When I click on it, the text field gets updated only with "test". It clips off the "blah/foo". This gets annoying as every time, I push or pull or do any action with remote branches, I have to type in the entire name.
Is this a bug ? Or am i missing something ?
I go to "Actions->Pull". In the dialog box which opens, I have my remote branches listed. When I click on one of the branch names in the list, it doesn't update the name correctly in the text box field. For example, I have a remote branch named blah/foo/test. When I click on it, the text field gets updated only with "test". It clips off the "blah/foo". This gets annoying as every time, I push or pull or do any action with remote branches, I have to type in the entire name.
Is this a bug ? Or am i missing something ?
David Aguilar
May 21, 2012, 3:24:49 PM5/21/12
to Karthik Manamcheri, git-...@googlegroups.com
It works for simple things like "origin/master" where it gets stripped
down to just "master". This needs to be fixed.
--
David
Karthik Manamcheri
May 21, 2012, 4:29:05 PM5/21/12
to David Aguilar, git-...@googlegroups.com
I found the bug and fixed it. Should I submit a patch somewhere ? or can I just push the commit to the master branch ?
- Karthik--
Karthik Manamcheri
- Karthik
Karthik Manamcheri
Software R&D | Instrument Control Products | National Instruments
David Aguilar
May 21, 2012, 5:42:12 PM5/21/12
to Karthik Manamcheri, git-...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Karthik Manamcheri
<mailkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the patch.
Thanks Karthik
I was in meetings so I hadn't seen your email until now. We were
probably both working towards a similar solution.
Take a look at what I pushed out -- it should it. I did it a little
differently then what was in your patch -- I added a new function
instead of changing the behavior of utils.basename(). The reason is
that utils.basename() is used in other places where its behavior
should remain unchanged.
--
David
<mailkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's the patch.
Thanks Karthik
I was in meetings so I hadn't seen your email until now. We were
probably both working towards a similar solution.
Take a look at what I pushed out -- it should it. I did it a little
differently then what was in your patch -- I added a new function
instead of changing the behavior of utils.basename(). The reason is
that utils.basename() is used in other places where its behavior
should remain unchanged.
--
David
Karthik Manamcheri
May 21, 2012, 5:51:04 PM5/21/12
to David Aguilar, git-...@googlegroups.com
With your current function, if the path doesn't have a '/', it can't access the index 1. So you should just return path.split('/',1)[-1] instead of [1].
David Aguilar
May 21, 2012, 6:03:44 PM5/21/12
to Karthik Manamcheri, git-...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Karthik Manamcheri
<mailkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With your current function, if the path doesn't have a '/', it can't access
> the index 1. So you should just return path.split('/',1)[-1] instead of [1].
Correct. Thanks. That's much better.
<mailkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With your current function, if the path doesn't have a '/', it can't access
> the index 1. So you should just return path.split('/',1)[-1] instead of [1].
I applied your fix, added more doctests, and told git that you were the author.
--
David
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages