Re: [PATCH] fetch: Only call a new ref a "branch" if it's under refs/heads/.

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 12, 2012, 05:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20120412055216.GC27369@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1334154569-26124-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com>

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:29:29AM -0400, marcnarc@xiplink.com wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

>  builtin/fetch.c |    9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c
> index 65f5f9b..57be58a 100644
> --- a/builtin/fetch.c
> +++ b/builtin/fetch.c
> @@ -298,8 +298,13 @@ static int update_local_ref(struct ref *ref,
>  			what = _("[new tag]");
>  		}
>  		else {
> -			msg = "storing head";
> -			what = _("[new branch]");
> +			if (!prefixcmp(ref->name, "refs/heads/")) {
> +				msg = "storing head";
> +				what = _("[new branch]");
> +			} else {
> +				msg = "storing ref";
> +				what = _("[new ref]");
> +			}
>  			if ((recurse_submodules != RECURSE_SUBMODULES_OFF) &&
>  			    (recurse_submodules != RECURSE_SUBMODULES_ON))
>  				check_for_new_submodule_commits(ref->new_sha1);

It looks like you kept the behavior the same with respect to recurse_submodules, which will continue to run for everything except tags. Which is probably a good choice, since your patch only wanted to deal with the status message, but I am left to wonder: if submodules were intended to be recursed for branches but not tags, what should happen for other types of refs? Was it intentional that they fell into the "branch" category here, or were they following the same failure to distinguish that the message-writing code had?

This code block handles only new refs. If you look at the code below, updates of existing refs (forced or not) will happen for all refs, including tags.

Jens, can you double-check the intended logic?

-Peff