From: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:06:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] stat_tracking_info: return +1 when branch and upstream differ
Message-ID: <1c4d5de6-566e-5b5f-7cfc-66b2874a7d63@jeffhostetler.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171220161407.GB31149@sigill.intra.peff.net>



On 12/20/2017 11:14 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:42:43PM +0000, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
> 
>> Extend stat_tracking_info() to return 1 when the branch is
>> not up to date with its upstream branch and only return 0
>> when they are equal.
> 
> This means that callers all need to be updated, but there's no change
> that the compiler could catch. You've updated all of the calls here, but
> any topics in flight would need to be fixed, too.
> 
> I don't see any any in pu, but there are a number of long-running forks
> hanging around these days.
> 
> Is it worth introducing a small change so that any other callers which
> get merged in force a human to look at them? I'm wondering if we could
> just re-order the "upstream_name" argument or something.

Good point.  I usually try to avoid signature changes to minimize the
disruption, but as you say that can be a good thing too.  I'll add an
argument rather than using the null field trick.

> 
>> --- a/remote.c
>> +++ b/remote.c
>> @@ -1983,7 +1983,9 @@ int ref_newer(const struct object_id *new_oid, const struct object_id *old_oid)
>>    * is not itself NULL.
>>    *
>>    * Returns -1 if num_ours and num_theirs could not be filled in (e.g., no
>> - * upstream defined, or ref does not exist), 0 otherwise.
>> + * upstream defined, or ref does not exist).
>> + * Returns 0 if the commits are the same (the branch is up to date).
>> + * Returns 1 if the commits are different (the branch is not up to date).
> 
> Slightly pedantic, but we'd return 1 here also if the branch is ahead of
> its upstream, right?

Yeah, poor word choice on my part.  I'll fix.

Thanks
Jeff