Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs

From: Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2016, 08:45 UTC
Message-ID: <CAFaJEqs7vE4knXXOdKk+PxY2DZs=7BHGUJY_0a_aKF1ngnX+Lg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOLa=ZSVgm_J9n9wBp_cPWF4kWtvq_8DMLWGoYTSVetOpEJnAQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 25 August 2016 at 07:56, Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm thinking more on the lines of `%(upstream)` being an atom and the
> `:track` being an option under that atom. I like sub-atom though ;)
>

On second thought maybe "quark" is better :P

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> It's been waiting for review for a _long_ time now.
>

To be perfectly honest my C skills and familiarity with the git source code is not much to speak of. I very much want to take a close look but I cannot promise anything worth your time...

But if I do find something I'd like to point out should I just reply directly to the e-mails containing the patches as one usually does even though they're months old at this point?

Øsse