From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:51:56 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] some enhancements for reporting branch tracking info Message-ID: <7v7gfiojz7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Jiang Xin writes: > 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.