> Yup.  Sorry I did not make that clear.  You deserve the credit.
Thanks (and that wasn't a grumble, just a point of information)

> I am beginning to feel this workflow might benefit from some
> tool support, but I haven't had enough experience to talk about
> exactly what they are yet.
I feel that I have settled into a rut.  My topic workflow works
fairly well, so I'm not really working on cleaning any remaining
rough edges.  It will be good to have some other eyes (especially
some eyes that have been keeping a close eye on all the new features
that have been added to the rest of git) looking at this.

> For example, listing topics that have ever been merged into a
> particular branch, listing topics that have not been fully
> merged into a particular branch, etc. are things I find myself
> doing frequently.  I vaguely recall seeing your post that has
> these things.

At the end of the using-topic-branches file there is an example
"status" script.  My real script has had some updates (see attached)
that reports on extra bits (like whether Linus as made new packfiles
that I should pull down). And ignoring some special (to me) branch
names when reporting.  But it has lots of hard-coded paths for my
workflow. Branches "linus", "release" and "test" are very special.
I have no "master" or "origin" branches at all.  But the net output
seems to be what you want ... for each topic branch it reports
whether that branch has already been merged to the test/release/linus
branches, and whether I have commits in my release branch that are
not in test.

-Tony