Draft: Add support for automatic branch tracking

[mdedonno1337]

This is a draft related to the issue #50. Only to have a tracked discussion on how to implement this feature.

The idea is to try first to create a new branch with remote tracking; if the branch already exists, it will fail and trigger the second command doing a normal git checkout.

I'm using this in a bash script to do fzf branch managment ( 😄 ) since years and it works fine.

[mdedonno1337]

Some thoughts:

1. If implemented, how useful will the 'track' option be?
2. Is it a good idea to stuff the command the s:branch_actions variable, or should we add an option in the s:branch_actions, something like if_fail or alternative_command or something, and move the retry commands near the system() command?
3. Letting bash do the work is probably easier that making the error management in vimscript (let ret = system(...); if ret == error_code; then ...); what do you think? If so, will it be tested on Windows and Mac?

[stsewd]

So, this is one of the "lazy" implementation I came a long time ago, but obviously you can have other names for the remote, and branches and remotes can also have / in the name.

[mdedonno1337]

For the name origin, you are absolutely right, it was just a first draft, to be corrected.

For the slash being possibly part of the branch name, I thought about that, but did not know that the origin name could also contain one...
I may have a solution, but we will not be able to distinguish between first/second/last, with first/second being the remote and last the branch name, against first the remote name and second/last being the branch name.
I hope that no sane developer would use this kind of logic to organize branches and remotes...

[stsewd]

If implemented, how useful will the 'track' option be?

I think if we find a way to make this work for all cases that option could be deprecated, or maybe just leave it around.

Is it a good idea to stuff the command the s:branch_actions variable, or should we add an option in the s:branch_actions, something like if_fail or alternative_command or something, and move the retry commands near the system() command?

I like the idea, maybe accept a list of commands instead of just one, so they are retried one after one.

Letting bash do the work is probably easier that making the error management in vimscript (let ret = system(...); if ret == error_code; then ...); what do you think? If so, will it be tested on Windows and Mac?

Yeah, having this in bash is more easy, but introduces problems with compatibility with mac/windows and even with the shell being used, that's why I'm trying to have more this on vimscript when possible.

[mdedonno1337]

If implemented, how useful will the 'track' option be?

I think if we find a way to make this work for all cases that option could be deprecated, or maybe just leave it around.

Is it a good idea to stuff the command the s:branch_actions variable, or should we add an option in the s:branch_actions, something like if_fail or alternative_command or something, and move the retry commands near the system() command?

I like the idea, maybe accept a list of commands instead of just one, so they are retried one after one.

Letting bash do the work is probably easier that making the error management in vimscript (let ret = system(...); if ret == error_code; then ...); what do you think? If so, will it be tested on Windows and Mac?

Yeah, having this in bash is more easy, but introduces problems with compatibility with mac/windows and even with the shell being used, that's why I'm trying to have more this on vimscript when possible.

Good remarks and arguments. Thanks for the feedback!
I will think about it and make a draft I have something intelligent. Will let you know.