From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t3200-branch: test setting branch as own upstream Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:59:29 -0500 Message-ID: <20140228105929.GA18960@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1393556659-32717-1-git-send-email-modocache@gmail.com> <20140228053703.GA32556@sigill.intra.peff.net> <531032DD.9000904@viscovery.net> <20140228071401.GA1229@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140228072606.GA622@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140228083718.GA11480@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Brian Gesiak X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 28 11:59:54 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WJLAU-0001gr-Qh for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:59:51 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751452AbaB1K7d (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:59:33 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58680 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751296AbaB1K7d (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:59:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 26756 invoked by uid 102); 28 Feb 2014 10:59:33 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:59:33 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 28 Feb 2014 05:59:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 07:44:10PM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote: > > I notice that the warning comes from install_branch_config, which gets > > used both for "branch -u", but also in the "side effect" case I > > mentioned above. Is it possible to trigger this as part of such a case? > > I think maybe "git branch -f --track foo foo" would do it. If so, we > > should perhaps include a test that it does not break if we upgrade the > > "-u" case to an error. > > Do you mean that install_branch_config should continue to emit a > warning in the "side effect" case? I'm not sure I agree--how is "git > branch -f --track foo foo" less erroneous than "git branch -u foo > refs/heads/foo"? Perhaps I'm missing some insight on how "--track" is > used. I'd be more worried about triggering it via the config. E.g.: git config branch.autosetupmerge always git branch -f foo foo Should the second command die? I admit I'm having a hard time coming up with a feasible reason why anyone would do "branch -f foo foo" in the first place. I just don't want to regress somebody else's workflow due to my lack of imagination. -Peff