Re: [PATCHv2] fetch: Only call a new ref a "branch" if it's under refs/heads/.

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Apr 13, 2012, 21:13 UTC
Message-ID: <20120413211350.GD7919@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1334336904-18649-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:08:24PM -0400, marcnarc@xiplink.com wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c
> index cfb43df..b6f737e 100644
> --- a/builtin/fetch.c
> +++ b/builtin/fetch.c
> @@ -293,14 +293,18 @@ static int update_local_ref(struct ref *ref,
>  		const char *msg;
>  		const char *what;
>  		int r;
> -		if (!strncmp(ref->name, "refs/tags/", 10)) {
> +		if (!prefixcmp(ref->name, "refs/tags/")) {
>  			msg = "storing tag";
>  			what = _("[new tag]");
>  		}
> -		else {
> +		else if (!prefixcmp(ref->name, "refs/heads/")) {
>  			msg = "storing head";
>  			what = _("[new branch]");
>  		}
> +		else {
> +			msg = "storing ref";
> +			what = _("[new ref]");
> +		}

Hmm. The ref->name we are comparing here is the local side. So if I am fetching a new branch "foo" from the remote into a local "refs/remotes/origin/foo" tracking ref, it used to say:

    From ../parent
     * [new branch]      master     -> origin/master

Now it says:

    From ../parent
     * [new ref]         master     -> origin/master

while refs/remotes/* are not technically branches in our side, I think from the user's perspective, it is true that we have fetched a branch. Should we be calling refs/remotes/* branches, too? Should we be checking the remote's name for the item instead of the local one?

-Peff