How about a single branch mode?

[nskazki]

I use git branch often, so I don't want to have hundreds of dura-HASH branches in the output, but I don't mind another static branch next to the master and staging. Is it possible to have just one dura branch, but keep snapshotting everything? I know that filtering out dura-HASH branches would be a solution to my problem, but still, I would like the single branch mode better.

P.S.: I'm very executed about this project for I've developed a habit of making a temporary commit every few minutes over the years, but your solution is better because it's automated ❤️

[tkellogg]

I wonder if we could have 2 parents for every commit — the base commit + the dura branch. The history could get very messy to look at though. It's worth a try.

If you want to try it out, it's a matter of adding &head to this list (and change the branch name of course)

[tkellogg]

would #59 do what you want? if it's implemented

[nskazki]

Hey! The idea is great. The tool definitely needs this subcommand. Especially when it comes to rebasing because with the rewritten history it might be very hard to figure out the dura branch to check on.

As for my problem. The subcommand won't solve it, unfortunately, because there still will be hundreds of dura branches in the git branch output. However, I don't know a way to keep diffs readable with a single branch where every commit is disconnected from others. So, I don't mind shelving the idea of a single branch mode.

[tkellogg]

Yeah, I can't see dura doing single branch mode natively, it's too invasive. I want to focus on other ways of managing branches.

We could publish dura on crates.io so that someone else can tinker with the idea of single branch mode without having to rewrite dura. Is that interesting to you?

[nskazki]

Okay. Thank again for creating the tool. I believe it has lots of potentials, keep on going 👍

As for working on a fork, no, I won't commit. Although, thanks for asking!