From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.158]) (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 26C9B317163 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2026 17:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.158 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775582880; cv=none; b=WOWandn1nmBgdwffcAoh5B74Rqj8+zRby8GhziU1k9BqrXCol9LdAVkAUzTCFMaQPbkLCvEMfVNpX8XoGMXj0avf4Ty3sRijuuj6izxOuzyeqepaXJYqokVYC5zzekF14RCUzClG5qCNIaUgRsdoMjIRewiBtMj4bjSaAOg6IbA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775582880; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VyR4oeO5uSqKUPGpKP873dfXT3FGUbKapy0K1+fPsaw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qTnc7NYOtpfYiPMHSdQTpiZ0xcjIm8I6keOFzHRF1ab4e560A6PPoblw8aAcfmlM4Ep4Jb8WavzJi/sWSMFRrWQ7DCeDP+ovX3ShxSN2Jb4ofBakMsWy1sqCI1a9dAaH8kk5h93eRZzhePoEYFZ5WsaS+H++R9nE6qblq73I/k0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=agjkzwFb; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=WYpOH11S; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.158 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="agjkzwFb"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="WYpOH11S" Received: from phl-compute-11.internal (phl-compute-11.internal [10.202.2.51]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D90414002E9; Tue, 7 Apr 2026 13:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-11.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 07 Apr 2026 13:27:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; 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=1775582878; x=1775669278; bh=4Rg+j9AE7P TLEqef+HOqMdYCfcsGoFmWmqfBkD0+bYw=; b=agjkzwFbhpklFR2SmsAj/RfGmX nV3RDNyI9oUDvHtS0pkQHD0BWsFKckhxWOa5bjUZqfwO7K6V1MZmTTF8mRcYMgkI cIdloQ34wTee4ia68dxSNRh27m9VCb4LS79Opwfm4NQaAr1QWbkBLsP3pNlq+Mg+ 5N5O9ROTInLxbeIQCVwR1PY4GBVC+8/FDmRQn3ybnwgj3LMWyL7m+SR7TrMLpRyg dFnCA+IwuPWTlh7CezwioxDoIsTqTbsd0GFigtnlKERBAgNdvNmcc+eHax7B6uPU KGfHl+U7D0+5hjgwtHBd9AyLnynJKhKU7LPdOTrllKATqA/xgCJqLiUWk5HQ== 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=fm2; t= 1775582878; x=1775669278; bh=4Rg+j9AE7PTLEqef+HOqMdYCfcsGoFmWmqf BkD0+bYw=; b=WYpOH11SHl92aKr3NHfjE2f1Y7nVsCNpJJjK44SLPdnV2TdGp1h SJ7mOdb5g3W2HKIInnak5hVTFUJZDrLPce6RQsZue9ujBxSKrgUZHzF1O925mBnz iqV1z3iMzDJn8s9CPhrd5WvtMMsWGY5bpKtutYRAwujpCfQDQP6UGH4JbDtncF/7 1NXHksyTnrj1l4/N5ql73yBmZyxJzLpPpiThwNHZxIYO7m7GN9AO9jgnS4L5+YCV MoMlXhHEWNCyOQYsf2OXMO78343ScIxVfWaMZ4RpWwbN3b5fVCjkoemnM6ijA5l9 XloMZ2UfGeVlOxyJMMpUOI8wciDgdsPalHw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefhedrtddtgddvuddvhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefhvfevufgjfhffkfgfgggtsehttdertddtredtnecuhfhrohhmpefluhhnihhoucev ucfjrghmrghnohcuoehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeefveetteejheeugeffledvteeiveffueefjeelueffteeigffgfedthfefieeg ieenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgih htshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeekpdhmohguvgepshhm thhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopegthhhrihhsthhirghnrdgtohhuuggvrhesghhmrghilh drtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghp thhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdprhgtphhtthhopehmvgesthhtrgihlhhorhhrrdgtoh hmpdhrtghpthhtohepkhgrrhhthhhikhdrudekkeesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphht thhopehnvgifrhgvnhesghhmrghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegthhhrihhstghooh hlsehtuhigfhgrmhhilhihrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosgho gidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 7 Apr 2026 13:27:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Patrick Steinhardt , Taylor Blau , Karthik Nayak , Elijah Newren , Christian Couder Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] promisor-remote: clarify that a remote is ignored In-Reply-To: <20260407115243.358642-4-christian.couder@gmail.com> (Christian Couder's message of "Tue, 7 Apr 2026 13:52:36 +0200") References: <20260402070613.85934-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20260407115243.358642-1-christian.couder@gmail.com> <20260407115243.358642-4-christian.couder@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 10:27:56 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Christian Couder writes: > In should_accept_remote() and parse_one_advertised_remote(), when a > remote is ignored, we 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. > > Signed-off-by: Christian Couder > --- > promisor-remote.c | 11 ++++++----- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) I agree that it makes sense to add the final disposition to the message. It would be even better to rephrase so that it, the most important part of the message, comes first. E.g., > > diff --git a/promisor-remote.c b/promisor-remote.c > index 6c935f855a..8e062ec160 100644 > --- a/promisor-remote.c > +++ b/promisor-remote.c > @@ -670,15 +670,16 @@ 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); I would find it easier to understand if it is phrased this way. warning(_("ignoring remote '%s' that advertises no usable URL"), remote_name); i.e., conclusion first, the reason for the conclusion next. Thanks.