Jiang Xin <worldhello....@gmail.com> writes:

> Changes since v6:
> * s/broken/gone/ in [PATCH 2/3] (branch: mark missing tracking branch
>   as gone)
> * rewrite commit log for [PATCH 3/3] (status: always show tracking
>   branch even no change)
> Jiang Xin (3):
>   branch: not report invalid tracking branch
>   branch: mark missing tracking branch as gone
>   status: always show tracking branch even no change
>  builtin/branch.c         | 36 ++++++++++++--------
>  remote.c                 | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  t/t6040-tracking-info.sh | 89 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  wt-status.c              | 26 +++++++++++---
>  4 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)

Thanks; getting clearer to read.

I however feel that [1/3] is introducing a regression (what we used
to report, gone branches, are hidden), only to correct the
regression immediately after it with [2/3].

I wonder if these patches should be combined into one, with
justification like "with the current code, a branch that is in sync
with its upstream, a branch whose upstream no longer exists and a
branch that does not build on anything else cannot be distinguished;
show the first class as 'same', mark the second class as 'gone', and
show only the last one as not having any uptream', or something.
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

Reply via email to