Hi, Peff On 24 August 2016 at 20:07, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote > > Whoops, your v2 spurred me to review, but I accidentally read and > responded to v1. > Thanks for the review! I was worried this patch had been buried :-) In the mean time, however, I have discovered that this conflicts with kn/ref-filter-branch-list in pu. In that topic this specific feature is implemented as well. They incorporate it into %(upstream:track) instead of having a separate "sub-atom" (what's the correct nomenclature, by the way?) more in line with with branch -vv and your idea. I recall seeing discussions about this work earlier, but I based my patch on master and forgot to check pu. (It was a spur-of-the-moment thing fueled by a question in #git about how to parse branch -vv to delete all local branch who had their remote counter-parts removed after a fetch --prune.) Unless that topic gets rejected, or is known to not be merged for a _long_ while, my patch doesn't add much value. Regards, Øsse -- 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