From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:59:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] send-pack: tighten remote error reporting
Message-ID: <20071118075908.GA24972@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20071118071651.GB18467@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:16:52AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> +			print_ref_status('!', "[remote rejected]", ref,
> +					ref->deletion ? ref->peer_ref : NULL,
> +					ref->remote_status);

Gah, that should of course be:

  ref->deletion ? NULL : ref->peer_ref

> +		case REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT:
> +			print_ref_status('!', "[remote failure]", ref,
> +					ref->deletion ? ref->peer_ref : NULL,
> +					"remote failed to report status");

And the same here.

I had resisted making a test that checked the exact output format,
because such things are often a pain to keep up to date. But that's two
regressions in patches I've submitted that would have been caught. Maybe
I should just pay more attention.

-Peff