Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] some enhancements for reporting branch tracking info

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2013, 19:51 UTC
Message-ID: <7v7gfiojz7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1376618877.git.worldhello.net@gmail.com>

Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com> writes:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Changes since v6:
>
> * s/broken/gone/ in [PATCH 2/3] (branch: mark missing tracking branch
>   as gone)
>
> * rewrite commit log for [PATCH 3/3] (status: always show tracking
>   branch even no change)
>
> Jiang Xin (3):
>   branch: not report invalid tracking branch
>   branch: mark missing tracking branch as gone
>   status: always show tracking branch even no change
>
>  builtin/branch.c         | 36 ++++++++++++--------
>  remote.c                 | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  t/t6040-tracking-info.sh | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  wt-status.c              | 26 +++++++++++---
>  4 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

Thanks; getting clearer to read.

I however feel that [1/3] is introducing a regression (what we used to report, gone branches, are hidden), only to correct the regression immediately after it with [2/3].

I wonder if these patches should be combined into one, with justification like "with the current code, a branch that is in sync with its upstream, a branch whose upstream no longer exists and a branch that does not build on anything else cannot be distinguished; show the first class as 'same', mark the second class as 'gone', and show only the last one as not having any uptream', or something.