Re: [PATCH v19 2/2] status: show comparison with push remote tracking branch

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Harald Nordgren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> @@ -2303,6 +2369,11 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb,
>  	const char *full_base;
>  	char *base;
>  	int upstream_is_gone = 0;
> +	unsigned base_branch_modes = BRANCH_MODE_PULL | BRANCH_MODE_PUSH;
> +	int push_ours, push_theirs, push_sti;
> +	char *full_push = NULL;
> +	char *push = NULL;
> +	unsigned push_branch_modes = 0;
>  
>  	sti = stat_tracking_info(branch, &ours, &theirs, &full_base, 0, abf);
>  	if (sti < 0) {
> @@ -2314,6 +2385,16 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb,
>  	base = refs_shorten_unambiguous_ref(get_main_ref_store(the_repository),
>  					    full_base, 0);
>  
> +	push = get_remote_push_branch(branch, &full_push);
> +	if (push && strcmp(base, push)) {
> +		push_sti = stat_branch_pair(branch->refname, full_push,
> +					   &push_ours, &push_theirs, abf);

Why is this variable called "push_sti"?  Calling the return value of
stat_tracking_info() "sti" was klumsy but understandable.  It would
have been much easier to follow the code if the variable were named
after what it _means_ in this particular caller's code flow, like
"cmp_fetch" (comparison on the fetching side, by convention negative
signals an error, and zero signals 'the same').  Perhaps rename "sti"
and "push_sti" at the same time to make them more symmetric?

Other than this minor nit, this step looks nicely done (and the
previous one is also good).

Thanks.