Julien Danjou <julien@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > We consider that if `git remote prune` is called without a name, we > actually want to prune all remotes. I think we try to make an opearation that discards information from many things at once by mistake, and it feels that this patch goes against it. In what situation does this new short-cut make things convenient, and how often does such a situation come up? The only one I can think of is when you are interacting with many volatile remotes that create and delete branches all the time, and when you are trying to repack/pack-ref your local repository with as much cruft removed, but in such a set-up, next time you interact with your remotes, you will get their "branch of the day" in your remote tracking namespace that will disappear shortly, and it does not sound like it is such a big deal if you did not run "remote prune" to all of them at once anyway. Having said all that... > diff --git a/Documentation/git-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-remote.txt > index 9e2b4ea..c566061 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-remote.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-remote.txt > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ SYNOPSIS > 'git remote rm' <name> > 'git remote set-head' <name> [-a | -d | <branch>] > 'git remote show' [-n] <name> > -'git remote prune' [-n | --dry-run] <name> > +'git remote prune' [-n | --dry-run] [name] > 'git remote update' [-p | --prune] [group | remote]... I think you would want to say [<name>] here, but looking at this list, I wonder if it would be more appropriate to allow "remote group" to be given to "prune" (and perhaps "show"). -- 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