Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote: > When I use the `git remote` command, I use the -vv variant to what what > I need, i.e. its more than `-v`, so maybe adding an extra > `--show-partial-filter` option may be necessary (with a more compact > name ;-). If adding new informations to `-v` is not possible (to avoid messy output), atleast including it to `-vv` makes sense to me (though I am not sure if `git remote -vv` is currently implemented). > There will also be a similar desire (IIUC) to match the sparse/cone mode > repos to their remotes, i.e. to remind a user that what is held at the > remote isn't the same as held locally. Yeah, maybe. > I hear your pain here. I had the same issue with the branch description. > (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15058844/print-branch-description). > It's the same 'extract from config' problem. > > ```You can display the branch description using a git config command. > > To show all branch descriptions, I have the alias > > brshow = config --get-regexp 'branch.*.description' > > , and for the current HEAD I have > > brshow1 = !git config --get "branch.$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref > HEAD).description". ``` > > so it is possible to generalise the config query, if hard to discover. > <https://stackoverflow.com/a/15062356/717355> Thanks for the info. I tried your suggestion and it worked. But still, it is better to include <list-object-filter> in the output. This is because of the second point I mentioned in my previous comment. Users can be much more clear about the types of available remotes overall. IMO specifying filters for remotes is far more important than the branch description. The behaviour of `git fetch` depends on it. If we can specify `(fetch)` in the output then why not the filter of that `fetch` on which the behaviour of `fetch` functionality highly depends? Thanks :)
