Re: [PATCH v7 07/17] ref-filter: make %(upstream:track) prints "[gone]" for invalid upstreams

[Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Make changes to t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh and
>> Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt to reflect this change.
>>
>
> This will change behavior if people were expecting it to remain
> silent, but I think this could be considered a bug.
>

Didn't get you.

>> Mentored-by: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
>> Mentored-by: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
>> Helped-by : Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt | 3 ++-
>>  ref-filter.c                       | 4 +++-
>>  t/t6300-for-each-ref.sh            | 2 +-
>>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
>> index 92184c4..fd365eb 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/git-for-each-ref.txt
>> @@ -119,7 +119,8 @@ upstream::
>>         "[ahead N, behind M]" and `:trackshort` to show the terse
>>         version: ">" (ahead), "<" (behind), "<>" (ahead and behind),
>>         or "=" (in sync).  Has no effect if the ref does not have
>> -       tracking information associated with it.
>> +       tracking information associated with it. `:track` also prints
>> +       "[gone]" whenever unknown upstream ref is encountered.
>>
>
> I think this is poorly worded. If I understand, "has no effect if the
> ref does not have tracking information" so in that case we still print
> nothing, right? but otherwise we print [gone] only when the upstream
> ref no longer actually exists locally? I wonder if there is a better
> wording for this? I don't have one. Any suggestions to avoid confusing
> these two cases?
>

Dropping this, since its taken care of in the next patch.

-- 
Regards,
Karthik Nayak