On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 03:01:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I am kind of surprised that the code still behaves differently
> > between empty and non-empty cases. Given the earlier decision above
> > to consistently use the remote's HEAD, I would have expected that
> > setting HEAD to point at an non-existent ref would be done at one
> > place, instead of being done for empty and non-empty clone
> > separately. We'll find out why while reading the patch, I think.
>
> OK, that is because we have if/else on the number of refs mapped via
> the refspec by wanted_peer_refs(), and setup_unborn_head is done
> independently in each of these if/else arms.
Right. I was hoping to avoid disturbing the logic too much, because I
didn't want to introduce new bugs. But I took a stab at it and it
doesn't seem too bad:
diff --git a/builtin/clone.c b/builtin/clone.c
index aa0729f62d..7b270d436a 100644
--- a/builtin/clone.c
+++ b/builtin/clone.c
@@ -1290,32 +1290,28 @@ int cmd_clone(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
remote_head = find_ref_by_name(refs, "HEAD");
remote_head_points_at =
guess_remote_head(remote_head, mapped_refs, 0);
-
- if (option_branch) {
- our_head_points_at =
- find_remote_branch(mapped_refs, option_branch);
-
- if (!our_head_points_at)
- die(_("Remote branch %s not found in upstream %s"),
- option_branch, remote_name);
- } else {
- our_head_points_at = remote_head_points_at;
- if (!our_head_points_at)
- setup_unborn_head(transport_ls_refs_options.unborn_head_target,
- reflog_msg.buf);
- }
+ } else {
+ remote_head_points_at = NULL;
+ remote_head = NULL;
}
- else {
- if (option_branch)
+
+ if (option_branch) {
+ /* this is a noop if mapped_refs is NULL, but should be OK */
+ our_head_points_at = find_remote_branch(mapped_refs, option_branch);
+ if (!our_head_points_at)
die(_("Remote branch %s not found in upstream %s"),
- option_branch, remote_name);
+ option_branch, remote_name);
+ } else if (remote_head_points_at) {
+ our_head_points_at = remote_head_points_at;
+ } else {
+ if (!mapped_refs) {
+ warning(_("You appear to have cloned an empty repository."));
+ /* could do this even in mapped_refs case, but we'd
+ * want to issue a warning ourselves then */
+ option_no_checkout = 1;
+ }
- warning(_("You appear to have cloned an empty repository."));
our_head_points_at = NULL;
- remote_head_points_at = NULL;
- remote_head = NULL;
- option_no_checkout = 1;
-
setup_unborn_head(transport_ls_refs_options.unborn_head_target,
reflog_msg.buf);
}
In fact, I think it may make things more clear. We avoid the duplicate
die() condition for option_branch, and we now have only one call to
setup_unborn_head(). So we could drop patch 2 and just keep it inline
here.
> The following rewrite with the same behaviour may be a bit easier to
> follow.
> [...]
> - } else {
> + } else if (remote_head_points_at) {
> our_head_points_at = remote_head_points_at;
> - if (!our_head_points_at)
> - setup_unborn_head(transport_ls_refs_options.unborn_head_target,
> - reflog_msg.buf);
> + } else {
> + our_head_points_at = NULL;
> + setup_unborn_head(transport_ls_refs_options.unborn_head_target,
> + reflog_msg.buf);
> }
Heh, I actually wrote it that way initially, but then realized it
collapsed to the more terse version. I don't mind doing it either way,
but maybe it's worth the rewrite I showed above.
If so, do you prefer to go straight there in patch 3 (and drop patch 2,
keeping the unborn setup inline), or do you prefer to see it on top?
Normally I'd suggest the former, but I worry that doing it all in one
patch means it's reorganizing the code _and_ changing the behavior all
at once, which is harder to reason about. And I don't see an easy way to
reorganize the code without changing the behavior.
-Peff
