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

[Karthik Nayak]

Hello,

>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff King  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?
>

Not that your review would be absolute but it definitely would be a start.

Replying directly to the patches is the way to go I feel.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak
--
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

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

[Øystein Walle]

On 25 August 2016 at 07:56, Karthik Nayak  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

> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff King  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
--
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

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

[Karthik Nayak]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Jeff King  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
--
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

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

[Jeff King]

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.

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.

Thanks.

-Peff
--
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

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

[Øystein Walle]

Hi, Peff

On 24 August 2016 at 20:07, Jeff King  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
--
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

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

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:35:28PM +0200, Øystein Walle wrote:

> git branch -vv will show "gone" next to a remote tracking branch if it
> does not exist. for-each-ref is suitable for parsing but had no way of
> showing this information.
> 
> This introduces "%(upstream:gone)" to display "gone" in the formatted
> output if the ref does not exist or an empty string otherwise, analogous
> to git branch -vv.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Øystein Walle 
> ---
> I took the liberty of sending in a v2 on my own. Removed the last argument to
> stat_tracking_info() and used test_config instead of test_when_finished.

Whoops, your v2 spurred me to review, but I accidentally read and
responded to v1.

I think test_config may not be the right thing here, though; see my
other comments.

-Peff
--
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