Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> When the push.negotiate configuration variable was implemented in
> 477673d6f3 ("send-pack: support push negotiation", 2021-05-05), Git was
> taught to print warning messages whenever that variable was set to true
> but push negotiation didn't happen. However, the lack of push
> negotiation is more similar to things like the usage of protocol v2 - in
> which the new feature is desired for performance, but if the feature
> is not there, the user does not intend to take any action - than to
> things like the usage of --filter - in which the new feature is desired
> for a certain outcome, and if the outcome does not happen, there is a
> high chance that the user would need to do something else (in this case,
> for example, reclone with "--depth" if the user needs the disk space).
>
> Therefore, when pushing with push.negotiate set to true, do not warn if
> wait-for-done is not supported for any reason (e.g. if the server is
> using an older version of Git or if protocol v2 is deactivated on the
> server). This is done by using an internal-use-only parameter to "git
> fetch".
Hmph, if this were a hard error, instead of "print warning
messages", the above discussion is entirely reasonable. But I am
not sure if squelching the warning unconditionally, especially given
that the feature is relatively young, is a good idea.
I suspect that you are trying to hide the "failed" message that may
sound more alarming then it should be from the end users, but if
that is the case, wouldn't it be a better solution to reword the
message to tone it down?
> - if (finish_command(&child)) {
> - /*
> - * The information that push negotiation provides is useful but
> - * not mandatory.
> - */
> - warning(_("push negotiation failed; proceeding anyway with push"));
> - }
Perhaps like "optional ancestry negotiation failed---pushing
normally" or some phrasing that assures the users that pushing
without negotiation is perfectly normal?
