From: John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:05:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Automatically remote prune
Message-ID: <43d8ce650911050005l6d120cb0h374f3c04b3948b25@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7viqdpemki.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

2009/11/5 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
> John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com> writes:
> "what the benefits are to give this information _in the 'branch' output_"
> was what I meant.  From the part you omitted from my message:

I omitted it just because, imho, it's not what I 'care about'.  I'm
not trying to help advanced users (Users that _want_ to keep
remotes/origin/* clean and users that _want_ to be careful to not lose
commits are both advanced users, imho).  I'm just interested in
reducing confusion for non-advanced users.  So either not-showing
removed remote branches by default, or showing them but marking them
as deleted.

> A better approach to please the first class of audience may be to
> introduce an option that tells fetch to cull tracking refs that are stale.
> Then "branch -r" output will not show stale refs and there is no place
> (nor need) to show [Deleted] labels.

If it's a non-default option, then it won't help the non-advanced users.

> Such an option won't be very useful for the second class of audience,
> though.  For them we would need something else, and it would likely be an
> enhancement to "git remote".

Which still leaves confusion when viewing "git branch -r" since they
would show up there still.


John