> Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > OK - updated the code, added a test for the "--dry-run > > --no-write-fetch-head" case, and updated commit message and code > > comment. > > Unfortunately our actions crossed X-< and the previous one that was > good enough is already in 'master', together with the lazy fetch > topic. > > Let's turn this into an incremental fix only for "Ouch, we still say > FETCH_HEAD when both --dry-run and --no-write-fetch-head are given" > bug. > > Thanks. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] fetch: fix --dry-run --no-write-fetch-head interaction > From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Recently we introduced "--[no-]-write-fetch-head" option to tell > "git fetch" not to write FETCH_HEAD file. The command reported that > FETCH_HEAD file is written, even with the "--no-write-fetch-head" > option. > > db3c293e (fetch: no FETCH_HEAD display if --no-write-fetch-head, > 2020-09-02) tried to squelch this, but the fix was not sufficient. > Because we never write the FETCH_HEAD file when "--dry-run" is > given, the addition of "--[no-]write-fetch-head" option was made by > directly fliping the internal variable 'write_fetch_head' (which > defaults to 'on') to 'off' upon seeing "--dry-run", which allowed > the condition to decide if we write FETCH_HEAD to be a simple > reference to the variable. But now, we need to tell if the user > explicitly asked "--no-write-fetch-head" with "--dry-run" to > decide when to show the report about FETCH_HEAD correctly. > > Introduce an extra 'user_specified_write_fetch_head' variable, which > is 'on' by default and is turned 'off' with '--no-write-fetch-head'. > The 'write_fetch_head' variable that decides if we actually write > FETCH_HEAD remains there, retaining its meaning, but use this new > variable and 'dry_run' to decide if we report about FETCH_HEAD. > > Suggested-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- Thanks - this looks good.
