From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:33:58 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs
Message-ID: <20160824183358.ahxcgcrg7jo2rygp@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAFaJEqvm9Xj34t+F=KMtwRDEYhwHZ7=MRwsZ22-Gt_UPd4r72A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:26:26PM +0200, Øystein Walle wrote:

> In the mean time, however, I have discovered that this conflicts with
> kn/ref-filter-branch-list in pu. In that topic this specific feature is
> implemented as well. They incorporate it into %(upstream:track) instead
> of having a separate "sub-atom" (what's the correct nomenclature, by the
> way?) more in line with with branch -vv and your idea.

Ah, right. I was feeling like this was all vaguely familiar. I think it
would be better to push forward kn/ref-filter-branch-list. According to
the last "what's cooking", I think that topic is waiting on more review.
If you're willing and able to do so, that would be a big help.

Thanks.

-Peff