Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't think it would be unreasonable to expose this functionality via > "for-each-ref". Something like this (which would need cleanup, > documentation, and perhaps a :short variant): I think that is a sane approach, but isn't "tracking" a misnomer? I think what you are describing is what is called "the upstream branch" by the description of Documentation/config.txt::branch.<name>.merge, and not what people call "tracking branch" (see Documentation/glossary-content.txt). In a repository with a handcrafted fetch refspec, being able to show "tracking" information would also be interesting (e.g. a clone of git.git made with pre-1.5.0 git would say "origin's master" for refs/heads/origin and "origin's next" for refs/heads/next), but the separate-remote layout is the default these days, so it wouldn't be so interesting anymore. In other words, I am not suggesting you to add "tracking" information. I also wonder if you want to say "this remote" and "that branch" separately. As far as I can tell you are not giving the former but only the latter information? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html