Re: [PATCH 2/2] Make local branches behave like remote branches when --tracked

[Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>]

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 27.03.2009 17:20:
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 27.03.2009 09:08:
>> ...
>>> After calling r-f-t, because this new code assumes that for the "." remote
>>> (aka "local repository"), r-f-t lies and does not give back what it
>>> expects, fixes what it got back from r-f-t.  Shouldn't we be fixing this
>>> inside r-f-t?
>>
>> The technical reason is that there is no local remote, i.e. no remote
>> struct for '.', and I don't think we want it, because it would show up
>> in all places where the list of remotes is searched/displayed/...
>>
>> With ret being the branch we talk about, r-f-t is passed ret->remote and
>> ret->merge[i] only. In the local case, r-f-t cannot use the remote
>> struct for '.' (there is none) to find what it needs, and it has no easy
>> access to ret->merge_names[i] which is that info.
>>
>> branch_get(), on the other hand, has all needed info in place.
> 
> Thanks for a detailed explanation.  Would it deserve to be in the commit
> log justification in a summarized form?

You tell me :)
I'm still unsure at times how detailed commit messages should be, but I
take it I should put a shortened version of the above in there.

> 
>> ..., even worse: if foo is
>> ambiguous because refs/heads/foo and refs/remotes/foo exist then
>> refs/heads/foo would win, i.e. we used to output the *wrong* ref. The
>> above disambiguates. But I'll see if I can simplify the output based on
>> the necessity of disambiguation.
> 
> Thanks.

I thought about doing the following:
- remove occurences of refs/remotes (like before the patch) and of
refs/heads. That way the output format stays the same, the amiguity
problem is not worsened
- think later/harder about doing this more cleverly. I guess I need to
check the output of dwim_ref, but have to figure out all the input
parameters first...

Michael