{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/issues/220","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/issues/220/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/issues/220/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/issues/220/events","html_url":"https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/pull/220","id":124604399,"number":220,"title":"omf update: Report up-to-date packages as such","user":{"login":"oranja","id":679184,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/679184?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja","html_url":"https://github.com/oranja","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/oranja/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":3,"created_at":"2016-01-02T18:35:01Z","updated_at":"2016-01-04T14:02:57Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/pulls/220","html_url":"https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/pull/220","diff_url":"https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/pull/220.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/pull/220.patch"},"body":"The purpose of this proposal is to generate a more accurate output on `omf update`. Namely, packages which have no upstream changes now report that they are already up to date.\r\nSince this is a proposal we haven't really discussed before, this is broken into 3 commits (instead of squashed), so it's easier to track the changes and their aims.\r\n\r\nRegarding performance, I must admit that I did not time the new code or the old.\r\nOverall the update process should not improve and not deteriorate in terms of performance. The previous `git pull` is broken apart to a `fetch` and a `merge`. Packages without changes skip the merge (and possibly stashing) in return for an additional check. Packages with changes pay just one more check. If `git` does any more optimizations in combining the `fetch` and `merge` when running `pull`, I am unaware of such and I would appreciate any tips.\r\n\r\n\\* Note that the bugfix is also covered by @derekstavis in **wip/reorganize-code**. I just couldn't leave it like this."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/issues/comments/168684305","html_url":"https://github.com/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/pull/220#issuecomment-168684305","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/oh-my-fish/oh-my-fish/issues/220","id":168684305,"user":{"login":"derekstavis","id":1611639,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1611639?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis","html_url":"https://github.com/derekstavis","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/derekstavis/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-01-04T14:02:57Z","updated_at":"2016-01-04T14:02:57Z","body":">Cleanup of internal functions on return - yes or no? How is less important now.\r\n\r\nThe only change I would make to internal functions would be prefixing them with `__`, which would make them hidden to `functions -n`"}}