On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:47:22PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I have a feeling that it is more appropriate to have the additional code
> in transport_push(), which gets ls-remote information, runs match_refs()
> and finally calls transport->push_refs(). I think the extra branch
> configuration would fit better inside the if block immediately after all
> that happens, i.e.
>
> if (!(flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_DRY_RUN)) {
> struct ref *ref;
> for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next)
> update_tracking_ref(transport->remote, ref, verbose);
> + if (flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_RECONFIGURE_FORK)
> + configure_forked_branch(...);
> }
>
> in transport.c
I thought about this place when making my patch, but didn't put it there
because this function is not called in the rsync protocol (which defines
transport->push). So I instead did the logical step and went into the caller of
that function. Functionality-wise, it also isn't really a "transport" function
but part of pushing.
> > + if(!(flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_DRY_RUN))
> > + if(!match_refs(local_refs, &remote_refs, refspec_nr, refspec, match_flags))
>
> Yuck; hiding the fact that you have an over-nested logic is not a way to
> fix it.
This was accidental.
But well. Why bother with this, if this feature was rejected before already
anyway.
Rudolf
--
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