From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ilari Liusvaara Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add push --set-upstream Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:56:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20100116155612.GA8383@Knoppix> References: <1263633827-23720-1-git-send-email-ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> <20100116203557.95340c00.rctay89@gmail.com> <20100116134656.GA4504@Knoppix> <20100116233043.26a5636d.rctay89@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Tay Ray Chuan X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jan 16 16:56:22 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NWB0e-0007nE-HC for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:56:20 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753447Ab0APP4R (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:56:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753403Ab0APP4Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:56:16 -0500 Received: from emh05.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.111]:41206 "EHLO emh05.mail.saunalahti.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751890Ab0APP4Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:56:16 -0500 Received: from saunalahti-vams (vs3-12.mail.saunalahti.fi [62.142.5.96]) by emh05-2.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C7CC8BDD6; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:56:15 +0200 (EET) Received: from emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.116]) by vs3-12.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.96]) with SMTP (gateway) id A0110511D1B; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:56:15 +0200 Received: from LK-Perkele-V (a88-113-39-59.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.113.39.59]) by emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0866AE51AC; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:56:12 +0200 (EET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100116233043.26a5636d.rctay89@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Antivirus: VAMS Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:30:43PM +0800, Tay Ray Chuan wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:46:57 +0200 > Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > > > > Regarding the checking of ref->status here: > > > > > > Is it possible to delegate this to push_had_errors(remote_refs) > > > instead? We skip setting up upstream tracking when there are errors > > > from pushing, so we don't have to check ref->status anymore. > > > > No. As documetnation says, the update or no update is done on per-branch > > basis. > > > > > > I see. If that's the case, could you also allow setting up upstream > tracking when ref->status is 'none' and not consider it errorneous? > > After all, push_had_errors() does not consider 'none' errorneous. Hmm... In what conditions ref->status is 'none' after push operation has completed? -Ilari