Re: [PATCH 4/5] Be more specific if upstream branch is not fetched

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 12, 2012, 05:30 UTC
Message-ID: <20120412053017.GA27369@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1334161035-26355-5-git-send-email-zbyszek@in.waw.pl>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 06:17:14PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> If the branch configured as upstream was missing from
> remote.<remote>.fetch, git said "Upstream branch not found".
> We can be more helpful, and separate the cases when upstream
> is not configured, and when it is configured, but specific
> branch is not fetched.

I very much like the direction of this series, but I found this one a little confusing. If you have upstream config, but the configured merge branch is not part of the remote's refspecs, what does it mean? You would be able to "git pull", but you would not have a remote tracking branch representing what the remote has. So this message:

Show 6 quoted lines

> -		return error("No upstream branch found for '%s'", upstream->name);
> +		if (!upstream->merge)
> +			return error("No upstream configured for branch '%s'",
> +				     upstream->name);
> +		return error("Upstream branch '%s' not fetched from remote '%s'",
> +			     upstream->merge[0]->src, upstream->remote_name);

doesn't seem right to me. The upstream branch can be fetched just fine; it is simply that we do not maintain a tracking branch for it.

Having worked it out in my head, I think that is maybe even what you meant, but reading the message the first time left me very confused. I'm not sure what a better wording would be, though. I was thinking something like:

  Upstream branch '%s' is not stored as a remote-tracking branch.

or something, but I know we have had trouble with the term "tracking branch" in the past. Maybe there is a less loaded term.

-Peff