From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E776C347530 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774527664; cv=none; b=d05HK3R2oR4QMPfR48QOBXF6Fdr4yliz1PRcwZU8+/m5yLW4u+6xD9vCX1s4trhRSxV+95P2X5zKRcijizUhGWVOBd7PID7pH2BkY5FGPJyU0FznSq9afIyGpu0QsMtyplRBvfJ40njXU3quxhDIrHJUPZF/IxXx7mgZYuQ5Plc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774527664; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PhvTMSVtCOaWgWKts5DypqdnMYKuCnuoYIMiNMTHl34=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=TOB3J7x1j6OTWPFejkLM5ECWbnDySnFqSeSA17EmYCD0DJEJthC9FF1J47UXFs1QblaOXN61rT1TjJi4OgOb/DmYUzMkwcCoaG394S+35EkHQEWEVB+1xCbLJ1taCCnw8G1Rk/yA+Gxwjl65tR7Etv06KNbmIYGnGkt9QotR/KA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=hdcLg6eM; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=SoqwMJQ1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.153 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="hdcLg6eM"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="SoqwMJQ1" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3FE7A01D4; Thu, 26 Mar 2026 08:21:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-04 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 26 Mar 2026 08:21:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1774527662; x=1774614062; bh=wsYLD+gzGx vMZl+3/v21G8kdNT+s2Q5ZczL9QVeb5S0=; b=hdcLg6eMgoyZhyJGb/NtD9PE7H 51enjmiC5ZSXpvqtrz7JPGVPH54nC11y1lU/JGlLVTouAbuNoVB9LLlJAV8HUyh6 gQaUnqtdxzJNHv/W6EhkOYtifPLBXikWW0n300LH4VQGS+xoeUj3zNvuq2nJZa44 gjQ4PC8Q5yxBu3mibHTSfOajyZumsjAGXwutHg10x0NGZ7uMT3Dk3QA710UCfxIx 1dzVKSVhvQKABDWsxkDlqBb7Y8jkUCErwS0uR4ZT+4xZYjtG8XDFhnEvF8giMdUg l/sjZSrxmfQM4RinBApRxDLZ5bHE0Udj/us0Ghe6nidMe3M2S3RkRrIGrucg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1774527662; x=1774614062; bh=wsYLD+gzGxvMZl+3/v21G8kdNT+s2Q5ZczL 9QVeb5S0=; b=SoqwMJQ1AiS0Oz/dqcG9Qda5kChoRJx3wFljJo5rlORYNnUhcL6 s9d203anW277I4a7IqGghxG/7KMOC4fY5M5MljuYUNHkNgVrIsWpbGUChZSuo5MD H67nJqasOPbeYPY2EHXHS5LVJDf0ZrzRX//tYks9uEOlXjCMlaZe73iw5N1xcHuj MmlRH6Oyq+fpT7fQzCA2uqBit+oTpE1cnbwA8csLGPAGRHROkoARvjlimalwFI6m +xgDptQUKcYrq5Ccdf4E4Ru3vWXVJ9R5kW8Kb42j4i2rdHLcoSd0WHcwJj4aEkTo o35vgreFGbtNyz5n0HFry/i+zvboeNELjOA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgdefvdejfeejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgt khcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnh epveekkeffhfeitdeludeigfejtdetvdelvdduhefgueegudfghfeukefhjedvkedtnecu vehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkh hsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepjedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthht ohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehnvgifrhgvnhesgh hmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegthhhrihhstghoohhlsehtuhigfhgrmhhilhih rdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepkhgrrhhthhhikhdrudekkeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprh gtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgihlhhorhhrrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhg vghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopegthhhrihhsthhirghnrdgtohhuug gvrhesghhmrghilhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 26 Mar 2026 08:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 96d94708 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Thu, 26 Mar 2026 12:21:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:20:57 +0100 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Christian Couder Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Taylor Blau , Karthik Nayak , Elijah Newren , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] promisor-remote: clarify that a remote is ignored Message-ID: References: <20260323080520.887550-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20260323080520.887550-5-christian.couder@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260323080520.887550-5-christian.couder@gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 09:05:07AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > In should_accept_remote() when a remote is ignored, we might tell users > why it is ignored in a warning, but we don't tell them that the remote > is actually ignored. > > Let's clarify that, so users have a better idea of what's actually > happening. Interesting that this doesn't result in any test changes. Don't we have test coverage for `should_accept_remote()`? > diff --git a/promisor-remote.c b/promisor-remote.c > index 3f8aeee787..f5c4d41155 100644 > --- a/promisor-remote.c > +++ b/promisor-remote.c > @@ -660,15 +660,16 @@ static int should_accept_remote(enum accept_promisor accept, > BUG("Unhandled 'enum accept_promisor' value '%d'", accept); > > if (!remote_url || !*remote_url) { > - warning(_("no or empty URL advertised for remote '%s'"), remote_name); > + warning(_("no or empty URL advertised for remote '%s', " > + "ignoring this remote"), remote_name); > return 0; > } > > if (!strcmp(p->url, remote_url)) > return all_fields_match(advertised, config_info, 0); > > - warning(_("known remote named '%s' but with URL '%s' instead of '%s'"), > - remote_name, p->url, remote_url); > + warning(_("known remote named '%s' but with URL '%s' instead of '%s', " > + "ignoring this remote"), remote_name, p->url, remote_url); > > return 0; > } The change itself seems sensible to me. Patrick