Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> I don't know how often this would actually help users, though. It _is_ a
> pretty rare situation to ask for a non-commit. So maybe it's all
> over-engineering, and we should start with just die(). If somebody comes
> along later and wants to enhance it, it should be pretty
> straightforward.
I like that; after update_head() finishes, there are a few clean-up
things that the caller wants to do besides a checkout() call, but if
we make update_head() return a failure, perhaps the caller side
change would be as small as the attached patch. That would go nicely
with the "make the result just barely usable" approach of leaving an
unborn master branch I suggested in a separate message, I would think.
builtin/clone.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/clone.c b/builtin/clone.c
index c46ee29f0a..fa0558fa3e 100644
--- a/builtin/clone.c
+++ b/builtin/clone.c
@@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
branch_top.buf, reflog_msg.buf, transport,
!is_local, filter_options.choice);
- update_head(our_head_points_at, remote_head, reflog_msg.buf);
+ err = update_head(our_head_points_at, remote_head, reflog_msg.buf) < 0;
/*
* We want to show progress for recursive submodule clones iff
@@ -1265,8 +1265,10 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
}
junk_mode = JUNK_LEAVE_REPO;
- fetch_if_missing = 1;
- err = checkout(submodule_progress);
+ if (!err) {
+ fetch_if_missing = 1;
+ err = checkout(submodule_progress);
+ }
strbuf_release(&reflog_msg);
strbuf_release(&branch_top);
