From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF9183D666F for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 15:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772034300; cv=none; b=F9QjGLZgmeqDNog6t6cMizk3jJozUclJL6CGe2FiGesu04JZddxfa8JEKscdhevVRDfoSt8jXRMTVyjRz74LvtrmTIHZJefNMyIpL/IGUxdVb4lTU5nhsgwplgh3oS5S8exk2vsnF3nE8wB8BdDu/EU977FY9TCYk5CNH/s+8yI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772034300; c=relaxed/simple; bh=M9QigM3YuI0O2xy4i2/yoErrfhjgXgmDMWFDA6DxHsM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OvwiVPdFYJjUQGldljiz+xQrA1qRd2k+seiAHznyBB0sbXoSvLaolhHb+DEykOG4bEd7Tl4QlCp6hAE4PSe1aLzDFzKr3dYOvn5PFD73dlLkWqa5D5FahUzvaJNkhFyVjsNUCTaPuIImlp9qOZwbuDzogDZz0pBGn5riWRaW1rw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=MCld57aZ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=VOo7tmMy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="MCld57aZ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="VOo7tmMy" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35662140021E; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 10:44:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 25 Feb 2026 10:44:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1772034298; x=1772120698; bh=+IvoFGsVaa bgBimtIm5xAMFUKOA9bSj++oDFoFV3dUE=; b=MCld57aZbutR6ZeCcDs0mAk3Yt bNcSLUGp3YJ+GWYPHaNb8YBQQdMYAO+9V2FbcCgZ9SqL5LfpPjv/vR5U8PJ1XtZ7 U+emxLr40+t5f8i8gXIMUYVnq4+XmEfePNuKVNs8lwNHn4HfgLZM2t57Q9ltQzJW XcLWXxsZK8LUOahewDX9KRZYd6BVYd3lm+zWcUIyF3MoiS7+gYdbri9rVWocgfcj 0TiI/sYTOWT2NT1ogCPNJP8HA8u1W2GrBLXdk1ns2cWRjQvtkznwvGKDOdUyUeZZ 43HSJoEm5N1IqQV78nZzrcGY32koQ1JmEENYWzG0kxWZpZwq4m91Zwx92ZlA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1772034298; x=1772120698; bh=+IvoFGsVaabgBimtIm5xAMFUKOA9bSj++oD FoFV3dUE=; b=VOo7tmMy48accS7yMYxNxBN18R390+PlWhSR5IoxwDFrpRKX/7k IwnpjdKdB3Za70isehaFaqhgjm0EW6wO39dAMMFpkjnoocQQp8iYoxHxYSuoQZiD 8ZRBpMmbU5Wm6I3A3e6hzUp9sSY91Nn0aSyxv7yzOWG8XCrQ72z1I/ezwYQAzzn9 jkRkhdNVpNCDKITjx7C9cwfeDDHr2pIbRTOhDdthIW0YsYq55dhp6ejP5GioXjPA N+iyucjJT4RI8R9Vb4dc9BBX7DQppYnpsgCbIh6D8+vmX04VfAqMjYJCeyV3m5Yt 1ehn0WOW8RGFncForh9I5Kb9j3aGORSJgiQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgddvgeefgeelucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcu vecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeejleeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeei geeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepgh hithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohephedpmhhouggvpehs mhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohephhgrrhgrlhgunhhorhgughhrvghnsehgmhgrihhlrd gtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphht thhopehgihhtghhithhgrggughgvthesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehpvg hffhesphgvfhhfrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtgho mh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 10:44:57 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Harald Nordgren Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitgitgadget@gmail.com, peff@peff.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v28 2/2] status: add status.compareBranches config for multiple branch comparisons In-Reply-To: <20260225102228.95152-1-haraldnordgren@gmail.com> (Harald Nordgren's message of "Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:22:28 +0100") References: <20260225102228.95152-1-haraldnordgren@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 07:44:56 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Harald Nordgren writes: >>> So what about this. We add a config option that takes a list of items to >>> compare against. But it _only_ supports @{upstream} and @{push} for now, >>> and interprets them as branch@{upstream} and branch@{push} (but probably >>> done manually, not via dwim_ref). That limitation gets documented. >> >> Sounds like a good way forward. > > So if I do these changes, are we ready to merge then? I do not think of other things that needs to be done to the design at this moment. It of course does not give any guarantee that others won't find flaws in what we have discussed so far, though ;-) > I worked on this feature for 2 months, and then it got marked as stale > instead of being merged. Will this time be different? A topic becoming stalled is something the original author can (and has the primary responsibility to) avoid by keeping the discussion thread alive by responding to reviews, pinging the thread with comments similar to "now I think this one is done, all comments are addressed by either updating the code or replying why we would not want to go there (which the reviewer who made the comment hasn't responded yet, so the ball is in their court)", etc. Even though I try to help keep the ball rolling by pinging discussion threads that smell about to go stalled from time to time, I cannot guarantee that it would not happen again. But you can help ;-). Thanks for working on this topic.