On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@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.cou...@gmail.com> >> Mentored-by: Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> >> Helped-by : Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik....@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
