Hi,
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:46:57 +0200
Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Regarding the checking of ref->status here:
> >
> > Is it possible to delegate this to push_had_errors(remote_refs)
> > instead? We skip setting up upstream tracking when there are errors
> > from pushing, so we don't have to check ref->status anymore.
>
> No. As documetnation says, the update or no update is done on per-branch
> basis.
>
> <snip patch>
I see. If that's the case, could you also allow setting up upstream
tracking when ref->status is 'none' and not consider it errorneous?
After all, push_had_errors() does not consider 'none' errorneous.
I think a switch block might be neater too.
@@ -149,9 +149,15 @@ static void insert_packed_refs(const char *packed_refs, struct ref **list)
* Check suitability for tracking. Must be successful /
* already up-to-date ref create/modify (not delete).
*/
- if (ref->status != REF_STATUS_OK &&
- ref->status != REF_STATUS_UPTODATE)
+ switch (ref->status) {
+ case REF_STATUS_NONE:
+ case REF_STATUS_UPTODATE:
+ case REF_STATUS_OK:
+ ; /* no-op */
+ default:
continue;
+ }
if (!ref->peer_ref)
continue;
if (!ref->new_sha1 || is_null_sha1(ref->new_sha1))
--
Cheers,
Ray Chuan
--
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