On 21 March 2016 at 21:18, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > Again, just my opinion, but that looks awfully clunky. And it doesn't > address the other messages (you might be behind origin/branch-X by N > commits, or ahead by N, but only as of that particular date). Do we want > to annotate every message whose value was computed based on a tracking > branch?
Hmm. I would hope not. I'll wait for others to make a call on this, but it's about all I can suggest without significantly bloating the message which isn't desirable either. >> No one's suggesting that this message is removed, I'm not sure where >> you got that from? > > You said earlier: > >> [...]it's more a case of whether even printing that message is useful? > > I didn't know quite what you had in mind, which is why I asked. If we > all agree that removing it is a bad idea, then good, we don't have to > bother discussing that option. :) Ah, oops! I was meaning more, whether to print the message in the case where the branch was uptodate, but now I appreciate it's cached. Apologies for the confusion. -- Thomas Adam -- 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
