From: "Matt Hunter" <m@lfurio.us>
To: "Colin Hinton" <colinlewishinton@gmail.com>, <git@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] fetch.c: defer fetch.followRemoteHEAD validation
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2026 05:05:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DLWS9R3ZM2Z0.MVT71MWE19LN@lfurio.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261004201428.5210-1-colinlewishinton@gmail.com>
Hi Colin,
Just a couple comments and 'thinking aloud' on the design of the patch
from me. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to test this new
revision.
thanks
On Sun Oct 4, 2026 at 4:14 PM EDT, Colin Hinton wrote:
> The value of the fetch.followRemoteHEAD configuration variable is
> validated while the configuration file is being parsed, which
> produces a warning even when this particular "git fetch" invocation
> will never consult it.
>
> Store the raw config string instead, and resolve/validate it lazily
> at the one place in do_fetch() that actually uses it, so a mistyped
> value only warns, and a missing value only dies, when this fetch
> would have consulted it.
>
> remote.c's handle_config() has the same problem for
> remote.<name>.followRemoteHEAD, but is left unaddressed here since
> it touches shared remote-parsing infrastructure used well beyond
> fetch. Leave NEEDSWORK comments at both the now unresolved call site
The new comment in fetch.c doesn't actually have the NEEDSWORK label. I
would probably suggest placing one there, instead of adjusting this
sentence.
> @@ -103,7 +103,8 @@ static struct string_list negotiation_include = STRING_LIST_INIT_NODUP;
>
> struct fetch_config {
> enum display_format display_format;
> - enum follow_remote_head_settings follow_remote_head;
> + char *follow_remote_head_raw;
> + int follow_remote_head_seen;
> int all;
> int prune;
> int prune_tags;
> @@ -176,24 +177,31 @@ static int git_fetch_config(const char *k, const char *v,
> }
>
> if (!strcmp(k, "fetch.followremotehead")) {
> - if (!v)
> - return config_error_nonbool(k);
> - else if (!strcmp(v, "never"))
> - fetch_config->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_NEVER;
> - else if (!strcmp(v, "create"))
> - fetch_config->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_CREATE;
> - else if (!strcmp(v, "warn"))
> - fetch_config->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN;
> - else if (!strcmp(v, "always"))
> - fetch_config->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_ALWAYS;
> - else
> - warning(_("unrecognized fetch.followRemoteHEAD value '%s' ignored"), v);
> + free(fetch_config->follow_remote_head_raw);
> + fetch_config->follow_remote_head_raw = xstrdup_or_null(v);
> + fetch_config->follow_remote_head_seen = 1;
> return 0;
> }
We now have 'follow_remote_head_seen', which tells us whether to trust
the 'raw' string ptr or if the variable hasn't been set by the user.
Therefore, when 'seen' is true, the raw string is:
- NULL when a valueless true was specified
- "" when an actual empty string was specified
- any other string for a normal value
Because of this ...
>
> return git_default_config(k, v, ctx, cb);
> }
>
> +static enum follow_remote_head_settings get_follow_remote_head(const char *setting)
> +{
> + if (!setting)
> + die(_("missing value for 'fetch.followRemoteHEAD'"));
... this case is now meaningful, as we couldn't previously reach this if
'setting' was NULL.
> + else if (!strcmp(setting, "never"))
> + return FOLLOW_REMOTE_NEVER;
> + else if (!strcmp(setting, "create"))
> + return FOLLOW_REMOTE_CREATE;
> + else if (!strcmp(setting, "warn"))
> + return FOLLOW_REMOTE_WARN;
> + else if (!strcmp(setting, "always"))
> + return FOLLOW_REMOTE_ALWAYS;
> + warning(_("unrecognized fetch.followRemoteHEAD value '%s' ignored"), setting);
And the empty string case is handled here, which makes sense.
I believe Junio had mentioned tightening this warning to a die. I'm not
sure if it was _just_ this case or something else. Personally, I think the
warning is still the better call for some "f@KeValue". But it _could_
make sense to die on "", since that is more obviously mis-configured.
Having typed the above out, I now realize that is actually how the
previous v4 behaved (but in slightly less code). So, we're getting into
opinionated details here... Though, as-is I think this v5 implementation
is reasonable.
> @@ -2509,7 +2508,8 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc,
> {
> struct fetch_config config = {
> .display_format = DISPLAY_FORMAT_FULL,
> - .follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_UNCONFIGURED,
> + .follow_remote_head_raw = NULL,
> + .follow_remote_head_seen = 0,
and the 'seen' variable is initialized to false, good.
> .prune = -1,
> .prune_tags = -1,
> .show_forced_updates = 1,
> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> index fe62068463..58f3436222 100644
> --- a/remote.c
> +++ b/remote.c
> @@ -582,6 +582,13 @@ static int handle_config(const char *key, const char *value,
> &remote->negotiation_include);
> } else if (!strcmp(subkey, "followremotehead")) {
> const char *no_warn_branch;
> + /*
> + * NEEDSWORK: this is validated/warned about here, during config
> + * parsing, regardless of whether the fetch that triggered this
> + * parse will ever consult it for this particular remote. See
> + * fetch.c's deferred handling of fetch.followRemoteHEAD for the
> + * pattern this should likely follow.
> + */
> if (!strcmp(value, "never"))
> remote->follow_remote_head = FOLLOW_REMOTE_NEVER;
> else if (!strcmp(value, "create"))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-05 9:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-22 4:00 [PATCH] fetch.c: defer fetch.followRemoteHEAD validation Colin Hinton
2026-09-22 5:32 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-23 5:03 ` Colin Hinton
2026-09-24 7:50 ` Matt Hunter
2026-09-25 18:48 ` Colin Hinton
2026-09-24 7:50 ` Matt Hunter
2026-09-25 19:26 ` [PATCH v2] " Colin Hinton
2026-09-25 19:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-09-25 20:30 ` Colin Hinton
2026-09-30 4:21 ` Matt Hunter
2026-09-30 18:46 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-03 4:50 ` Colin Hinton
2026-09-25 23:06 ` [PATCH v3] " Colin Hinton
2026-10-03 23:14 ` [PATCH v4] " Colin Hinton
2026-10-04 13:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-04 15:40 ` Colin Hinton
2026-10-04 17:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-04 20:14 ` [PATCH v5] " Colin Hinton
2026-10-05 9:05 ` Matt Hunter [this message]
2026-10-05 13:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-06 3:22 ` [PATCH v6] " Colin Hinton
2026-10-07 16:50 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DLWS9R3ZM2Z0.MVT71MWE19LN@lfurio.us \
--to=m@lfurio.us \
--cc=colinlewishinton@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox