Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > You will notice that there are two Trace2 calls in that conditional `abf > == AHEAD_BEHIND_FULL` block. Yes, the calls use ours/theirs uninitialized. Is it sensible to show 0 there, or "(unset)" or its moral equivalent (e.g. "-1")? Not showing them indeed is an option, which is what you did below, and that I find sensible, too. > Now, what I failed to realize when reviewing this code (and I _bet_ Stolee > was in the same boat when they contributed the patch) is that this version > of `format_tracking_info()` is different from what is in v2.32.0. It is > the version we have in the `microsoft/git` fork, and it has not yet made > it upstream. To be precise, it is this commit: > https://github.com/microsoft/git/commit/91209e591b0398c8334a78001a245807f7eb348a > > In light of this, it might make more sense for us to fixup! this commit > thusly: > > -- snip -- > diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c > index caed9cbc31b1..cfb7b6bd8d30 100644 > --- a/remote.c > +++ b/remote.c > @@ -2110,7 +2110,7 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb, > sti = stat_tracking_info(branch, &ours, &theirs, &full_base, 0, abf); > trace2_data_intmax("tracking", NULL, "stat_tracking_info/ab_flags", abf); > trace2_data_intmax("tracking", NULL, "stat_tracking_info/ab_result", sti); > - if (abf == AHEAD_BEHIND_FULL) { > + if (sti >= 0 && abf == AHEAD_BEHIND_FULL) { > trace2_data_intmax("tracking", NULL, "stat_tracking_info/ab_ahead", ours); > trace2_data_intmax("tracking", NULL, "stat_tracking_info/ab_behind", theirs); > }
