Re: Feature request: git status --branch-only

[phillip.wood123@gmail.com]

Hi Peff

On 14/11/2023 20:18, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 03:02:04PM +0000, Phillip Wood wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ondra
>>
>> On 14/11/2023 12:40, Ondra Medek wrote:
>>> Hi Phillip,
>>>
>>> it does not work for a fresh clone of an empty repository
>>>
>>>       git for-each-ref --format="%(upstream:short)" refs/heads/master
>>>
>>> outputs nothing, while
>>
>> Oh dear, that's a shame. I wonder if it is a bug because the documentation
>> says that
>>
>> 	--format="%(upstream:track)"
>>
>> should print "[gone]" whenever an unknown upstream ref is encountered but
>> trying that on a clone of an empty repository gives no output.
> 
> I think it would print "gone" if the upstream branch went missing. But
> in this case the actual local branch is missing. And for-each-ref will
> not show an entry at all for a ref that does not exist. The
> "refs/heads/master" on your command line is not a ref, but a pattern,
> and that pattern does not match anything. So it's working as intended.

Oh of course, I'd somehow forgotten that "refs/heads/master" did not 
exist so it makes sense that for-each-ref does not print anything.

> I think a more direct tool would be:
> 
>    git rev-parse --symbolic-full-name master@{upstream}
> 
> That convinces branch_get_upstream() to return the value we want, but
> sadly it seems to get lost somewhere in the resolution process, and we
> spit out an error. Arguably that is a bug (with --symbolic or
> --symbolic-full-name, I think it would be OK to resolve names even if
> they don't point to something, but it's possible that would have other
> unexpected side effects).

Yeah, maybe we should look at fixing that - I didn't suggest it because 
I knew it did not work on an unborn branch but as you say there is no 
obvious reason why it shouldn't

Best Wishes

Phillip

> -Peff