Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] branch: display publish branch
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Apr 15, 2014, 05:43 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20140415054356.GA4772@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <5349562bb7ae4_c9914c7308f9@nysa.notmuch>
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:05:15AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> As you can see; some branches are published, others are not. The ones that are
> not published don't have a @{publish}, and `git branch -v` doesn't show them.
> Why is that hard to understand?Do you ever push the unpublished branches anywhere at all? If not, then you would not have a tracking branch. E.g., git _would_ push to remote "gh", branch "refs/heads/topic", but there is no remote tracking branch "refs/remotes/gh/topic", because you have never actually pushed there. So there is no @{publish} branch.
Or do you have some branches in a state where they are "pushed, but not published"? It wasn't clear to me from your example if your "pu" or "dev/remote/hg-extra" ever get pushed.
I do not use "git branch -v" myself, so I don't personally care that much how it behaves. But I do use a separate script that does the same thing, and I would want it to show the ahead/behind relationship between each branch and where it would be pushed to (and as I said, I define mine with refspecs). Right now it uses nasty hackery to guess at where things will be pushed, but ideally it would ask git via @{push} or some similar mechanism.
If the former (you do not actually push them), then I think the semantics I am looking for and the ones you want would coincide. If not, then I think we are really talking about two different things.
-Peff