Re: [PATCH 6/6] sha1_name: implement @{push} shorthand

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

>> > +static char *tracking_ref_for(struct remote *remote, const char *refname)
>> > +{
>> > +	char *ret;
>> > +
>> > +	ret = apply_refspecs(remote->fetch, remote->fetch_refspec_nr, refname);
>> > +	if (!ret)
>> > +		die(_("@{push} has no local tracking branch for remote '%s'"),
>> > +		    refname);
>> 
>> I would imagine that it would be very plausible that anybody with a
>> specific remote and the name of the ref that appears on that remote
>> would want to learn the local name of the remote-tracking ref we use
>> to track it.
>
> I am not sure I understand. We do _not_ have a local name we use to
> track it. That is the error. I can print "remote %s does not have branch
> %s", if that is what you mean.

No, I am not saying we should not detect an error.

>> But the error message limits the callers only to those who are
>> involved in @{push} codepath.  Shouldn't the error check be done in
>> the caller instead, anticipating the day this useful function ceases
>> to be static?
>
> Is it really a useful general function?

I often interact with this remote called 'ko'.  Do I have remote-tracking
branch to keep track of its 'master' branch, and if so, what is it?

Isn't that the question that the apply_refspecs() is answering?

> If you remove the die() message,
> it is literally a one-liner.

Yes, I thought I said that here...

>> I would suspect that such a change would make it just a one-liner,
>> but I think this helper that takes remote and their refname is much
>> easier to read than four inlined calls to apply_refspecs() that have
>> to spell out remote->fetch, remote->fetch_refspec_nr separately.

>> Perhaps we would want 
>> 
>> 	struct refspecs {
>>         	int nr, alloc;
>>                 const char **refspec;
>> 	} fetch_refspec;
>> 
>> in "struct remote", instead of these two separate fields, and then
>> make apply_refspecs() take "struct refspecs *"?  I haven't checked
>> and thought enough to decide if we want "struct refspec *" also in
>> that new struct, though.
>
> I think it is more complicated, as there are actually two arrays indexed
> by each {fetch,push}_refspec_nr. We have "fetch_respec", which contains
> the text (I assume), and then the "struct refspec".

Yeah, I thought I said that, too ;-)

> So ideally those
> would be stored together in a single list, but of course many helper
> functions want just the "struct refspec" list. So you still end up with
> two lists, but just pushed down into a single struct. I guess that's
> better, but I was trying to find a bound to my refactoring rather than
> touching all of the code. :-/

OK.