From: Øystein Walle <oystwa@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:26:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs
Message-ID: <CAFaJEqvm9Xj34t+F=KMtwRDEYhwHZ7=MRwsZ22-Gt_UPd4r72A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160824180730.mqlvhkthg4imd2vy@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hi, Peff

On 24 August 2016 at 20:07, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote
>
> Whoops, your v2 spurred me to review, but I accidentally read and
> responded to v1.
>

Thanks for the review! I was worried this patch had been buried :-)

In the mean time, however, I have discovered that this conflicts with
kn/ref-filter-branch-list in pu. In that topic this specific feature is
implemented as well. They incorporate it into %(upstream:track) instead
of having a separate "sub-atom" (what's the correct nomenclature, by the
way?) more in line with with branch -vv and your idea.

I recall seeing discussions about this work earlier, but I based my
patch on master and forgot to check pu. (It was a spur-of-the-moment
thing fueled by a question in #git about how to parse branch -vv to
delete all local branch who had their remote counter-parts removed after
a fetch --prune.)

Unless that topic gets rejected, or is known to not be merged for a
_long_ while, my patch doesn't add much value.

Regards,
Øsse