On 24 August 2016 at 20:07, Jeff King <p...@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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html