Re: [PATCH v2] remote.c: defer remote.<name>.followRemoteHEAD validation

["Matt Hunter" <m@lfurio.us>]

On Wed Oct 28, 2026 at 10:26 AM EDT, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>>> This part of the code becomes overly deeply indented, and more
>>> importantly, the outer conditional around here has been reworked by
>>> another topic and the code that learns follow_remote_head will have
>>> to be reused elsewhere, which would lead to a nasty merge conflict.
>>>
>>> I'd like to see this part refactored into a separate helper
>>> function, by squashing something like this on top of this patch.
>>>
> [...]
>
> The 'ch/remote-defer-follow-remote-head-validation' branch at
> https://github.com/gitster/git/ has a change on top that you can use
> as a reference.  If you are going to make this a two-patch series, it
> may make sense to first extract the code commented with "See
> remote.c's handling of ..." into a helper function, and then extend
> it to cover the lazy behavior in the second patch.  When viewed
> that way, the helper function should not be named with a 'lazy_'
> prefix as I mistakenly did.  Being lazy is not its purpose.  Its
> point is to determine which setting of followRemoteHEAD is to be
> used, and the helper function should be named after that concept.

I wonder if it makes sense to incorporate such a new helper function
into the existing 'get_follow_remote_head()', since it would be the only
place using it.