On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:12:18PM +0000, Thomas Adam wrote: > On 21 March 2016 at 20:50, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But that's just my opinion. Did you have some specific change you're > > interested in? I don't think removing that message is productive; it > > _is_ useful information. Perhaps it could be more clear that we are > > talking about the tracking branch? > > I don't have a specific change in mind per-se, rather than to discuss > how we might be able to improve the error message, or document > somewhere that it's referring to the tracking branch. Maybe that's > the point--is it worth mentioning the time/date of when the cache was > last updated? That is: > > "branch-X is uptodate with origin/branch-X (as of DD-MM-YY HH:MM:SS)" 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? > 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. :) -Peff -- 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