Bence Ferdinandy <bence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> +static void set_head_advice_msg(const char *remote, const char *head_name) {
> +
> + printf("Run 'git remote set-head %s %s' to follow the change, or\n"
> + "'git config set remote.%s.warn-if-not-%s' to disable this warning\n"
> + "until the remote changes HEAD again.\n",
> + remote, head_name, remote, head_name);
> +
> +}
Style. "{" that encloses the function body sits on a line of its
own.
Perhaps use the advise_if_enabled(), so that those who already
learned how to deal with the situation can squelch the "how to fix"
message.
> -static int set_head(const struct ref *remote_refs, int follow_remote_head)
> +static int set_head(const struct ref *remote_refs, int follow_remote_head,
> + const char *no_warn_branch)
> {
> int result = 0, create_only, is_bare, was_detached;
> struct strbuf b_head = STRBUF_INIT, b_remote_head = STRBUF_INIT,
> @@ -1660,7 +1668,10 @@ static int set_head(const struct ref *remote_refs, int follow_remote_head)
> result = 1;
> goto cleanup;
> }
> - if (follow_remote_head == FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN && verbosity >= 0)
> + if ((follow_remote_head == FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN ||
> + (follow_remote_head == FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN_IF_NOT_BRANCH &&
> + strcmp(no_warn_branch, head_name))
> + ) && verbosity >= 0)
Reorder conditions combined with &&- to have more expensive ones
later.
if (verbosity >= 0 &&
(follow_remote_head == FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN ||
(follow_remote_head == FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN_IF_NOT_BRANCH &&
strcmp(no_warn_branch, head_name)))
As human readers, we may know that no_warn_branch is always valid
when (follow_remote_head == FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN_IF_NOT_BRANCH), but
semi clever compilers may not realize it and give a false warning
about using no_warn_branch potentially uninitialized.
We could do without adding FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN_IF_NOT_BRANCH and reuse
FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN, like so:
if (verbosity >= 0 &&
follow_remote_head == FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN &&
(!no_warn_branch || strcmp(no_warn_branch, head_name)))
That is, "if set to remote-warn, always warn, or no_warn_branch is
not NULL, only warn if the current head is different from it".
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index 0b18840d43..f0e1b1b76a 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -515,6 +515,7 @@ static int handle_config(const char *key, const char *value,
> return parse_transport_option(key, value,
> &remote->server_options);
> } else if (!strcmp(subkey, "followremotehead")) {
> + const char *no_warn_branch;
> if (!strcmp(value, "never"))
> remote->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_NEVER;
> else if (!strcmp(value, "create"))
> @@ -523,6 +524,10 @@ static int handle_config(const char *key, const char *value,
> remote->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN;
> else if (!strcmp(value, "always"))
> remote->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_ALWAYS;
> + else if (skip_prefix(value, "warn-if-not-", &no_warn_branch)) {
> + remote->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN_IF_NOT_BRANCH;
> + remote->no_warn_branch = no_warn_branch;
> + }
If we were to do without FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN_IF_NOT_BRANCH, then the
above becomes
remote->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN;
remote->no_warn_branch = NULL;
} else if (skip_prefix(value, "warn-if-not-", &no_warn_branch)) {
remote->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN;
remote->no_warn_branch = no_warn_branch;
} else if (!strcmp(value, "always")) {
remote->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_ALWAYS;
} else {
warn(_("unrecognized followRemoteHEAD value '%s' ignored"),
value);
}
We'd want the new choice documented before we graduate this topic
out of the RFC status.
Thanks.
