Re: [PATCH 4/4] Show the branch type after the branch name for remotes

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Nov 3, 2006, 20:08 UTC
Message-ID: <7vmz785m4e.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <200611030833.42596.andyparkins@gmail.com>

Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> For me personally, I find my git-branch output more useful because in it's 
> unswitched form it shows me all branches.  However, I can easily put this 
> behaviour under a switch or, and this would get my vote, put the original 
> behaviour (i.e. show local branches only) under a switch.
>
> Which would you like?  If any.

I am a wrong person to ask, since I do not usually work in repositories with refs/remotes/ myself and the choice would not affect me either way.

For people who work with multiple remotes (e.g. following both Linus and Jeff) and work on many separate topic branches of their own, I would suspect that showing only local branches by default, with an option to show remote branches from only named remotes would make things less cluttered, and we can always have "-a" to mean everything under the sun.

This kind of limiting can be done more flexibly with globbing than just fixed set of flags.

We could have:

	git branch --list 'heads/'
        git branch --list 'remotes/jgarzik/'
        git branch --list 'heads/??/*'

and that command, crazily enough, would let you do:

        git branch --list 'tags/v2.6.19-rc*'

Hmm?