On Thu Nov 28, 2024 at 01:12, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Bence Ferdinandy" <bence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Just to clarify, an example: the remote's HEAD is set to "master", and you have >> - git remote set-head origin next >> - git config set remote.origin.followRemoteHead "manual" >> - git config set remote.origin.followRemoteHeadManual "master" >> >> you manually set these explicitly. As long as the remote's HEAD is still >> "master" you do not get a warning when running fetch, but if it changes to >> something else (even "next"), you _do_ get a warning, that is not silenced >> until you set followRemoteHeadManual to "next". > > Yup. > >> Would you expect `git remote set-head origin next` to set followRemoteHead to >> "manual" and to set the correct value for the followRemoteHeadManual to >> "master" if it actually changed the current refs/remote/origin/HEAD from master >> to next? > > What I found missing is: > > "I know this is the value I expect them to have, because it was > the value I last observed there. Please let me know when they > changed their mind; I want to reconsider my position when it > happens, and your warning me would help me to do so." > > My running "remote set-head" to manually change which of their > branches I am interested in does not tell Git anything about what > branch I expect them to be pointing at with HEAD. It may be the > action after such "reconsideration" of my position, but there is 0 > bit of information on what I expect their HEAD to be pointing at. Hmm. After a bit more thought: running `remote set-head` doesn't make much sense if you have "always" and makes a bit of sense if you have "warn". So maybe one thing set-head could do is _if_ you have always it could drop you to "warn" and "warn" could also include a line not just about following with "remote set-head" but something like "You can either follow with set-head, or you can turn this off but still get a warning if origin changes by setting ...". > >> Or is having this completely manual fine? > > If it can be automated, that would be nicer, but I do not think a > manual "remote set-head origin next" gives any information to help > automating it. > >> I toyed with the thought of rolling the two settings together (an unrecognized >> string would mean the reference for which we must be silent), but then you >> couldn't have a remote/HEAD called "create" for example, so I think we need to >> store that separately. I'm also not quite happy with "followRemoteHeadManual" >> ... > > Yeah, I was thinking a value like "warn-if-not-pointing-at-$branch" > where $branch part would be a token like 'bc/set-head-symref', > 'master', etc. Good idea. Probably shorter though like "warn-if-not-$branch". > > I do not think any of the above should block this topic. It can be > added later without disrupting all other modes implemented there. Ack, I'll send a respin with just enum fixed for now. Thanks, Bence
