On 8/13/2020 12:37 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> If you run fetch but record the result in remote-tracking branches,
> and either if you do nothing with the fetched refs (e.g. you are
> merely mirroring) or if you always work from the remote-tracking
> refs (e.g. you fetch and then merge origin/branchname separately),
> you can get away with having no FETCH_HEAD at all.
>
> Teach "git fetch" a command line option "--[no-]write-fetch-head".
> The default is to write FETCH_HEAD, and the option is primarily
> meant to be used with the "--no-" prefix to override this default,
> because there is no matching fetch.writeFetchHEAD configuration
> variable to flip the default to off (in which case, the positive
> form may become necessary to defeat it).
>
> Note that under "--dry-run" mode, FETCH_HEAD is never written;
> otherwise you'd see list of objects in the file that you do not
> actually have. Passing `--write-fetch-head` does not force `git
> fetch` to write the file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> * So, it becomes much smaller by punting the whole configuration
> thing, as we do not need the extra code for config parsing and
> there is no need for code to override the user configuration when
> driving "git fetch" from "git pull".
Sounds good. I'll incorporate this patch into my next version,
except it seems you dropped this test:
diff --git a/t/t5521-pull-options.sh b/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
index 159afa7ac8..db1a381cd9 100755
--- a/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
+++ b/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
@@ -85,6 +85,13 @@ test_expect_success 'git pull --cleanup errors early on invalid argument' '
test -s err)
'
+test_expect_success 'git pull --no-write-fetch-head fails' '
+ mkdir clonedwfh &&
+ (cd clonedwfh && git init &&
+ test_expect_code 129 git pull --no-write-fetch-head "../parent" >out 2>err &&
+ test_must_be_empty out &&
+ test_i18ngrep "no-write-fetch-head" err)
+'
test_expect_success 'git pull --force' '
mkdir clonedoldstyle &&
which I changed "test_must_fail" to "test_expect_code 129" to
demonstrate that this is a usage error, not just any error.
Thanks,
-Stolee
