From: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 05:56:12 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] for-each-ref: add %(upstream:gone) to mark missing refs
Message-ID: <CAOLa=ZSVgm_J9n9wBp_cPWF4kWtvq_8DMLWGoYTSVetOpEJnAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160824183358.ahxcgcrg7jo2rygp@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:26:26PM +0200, Øystein Walle wrote:
>
>> 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'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 ;)

> 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.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak