Hi, On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 03:07:07PM +0800, Tay Ray Chuan wrote: > >> remote = remote_get(dest); >> + if (!remote) >> + usage(ls_remote_usage); > > I don't see an update to ls_remote_usage, but shouldn't it now be: > > git ls-remote [--heads] [--tags] [-u <exec> | --upload-pack <exec>] > [repository] [<refs>...] > > or something now (while we're at it, maybe we can wrap it better as it's > larger than 80 characters). yes. I think git ls-remote [--heads] [--tags] [-u <exec> | --upload-pack <exec>] [<repository> [<refs>...]] would be more accurate. > But once that is done, shouldn't the (!remote) case say something like > "you don't have a default remote". The user didn't invoke ls-remote > incorrectly (as the usage message shows), but rather there was a > configuration problem. Noted. >> +test_expect_success 'use branch.<name>.remote if possible' ' >> + >> + # Remove "origin" so that we know that ls-remote is not using it. >> + # >> + # Ideally, we should test that branch.<name>.remote takes precedence >> + # over "origin", but that is another matter altogether. >> + # >> + git remote rm origin && >> + git config branch.master.remote self && >> + git ls-remote >actual && >> + test_cmp expected.all actual >> + >> +' > > Wouldn't your "ideally" just be: > > git clone . other-remote && > git push other-remote HEAD:unique-ref && > git config branch.master.remote other-remote && > ... > > and check for "unique-ref" in the output? hmm, upon clone, tracking branches are already created, so we can just treat them as the "unique refs", without having to create a unique ref. -- 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