Re: [PATCH 1/2] t3200-branch: test setting branch as own upstream

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 28, 2014, 10:59 UTC
Message-ID: <20140228105929.GA18960@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAN7MxmUUoz-HGFiTfgpvLpkXhvjBn_dYje7unoHE-Y=k3A0aqg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 07:44:10PM +0900, Brian Gesiak wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> > I notice that the warning comes from install_branch_config, which gets
> > used both for "branch -u", but also in the "side effect" case I
> > mentioned above. Is it possible to trigger this as part of such a case?
> > I think maybe "git branch -f --track foo foo" would do it. If so, we
> > should perhaps include a test that it does not break if we upgrade the
> > "-u" case to an error.
> 
> Do you mean that install_branch_config should continue to emit a
> warning in the "side effect" case? I'm not sure I agree--how is "git
> branch -f --track foo foo" less erroneous than "git branch -u foo
> refs/heads/foo"? Perhaps I'm missing some insight on how "--track" is
> used.

I'd be more worried about triggering it via the config. E.g.:

  git config branch.autosetupmerge always
  git branch -f foo foo

Should the second command die? I admit I'm having a hard time coming up with a feasible reason why anyone would do "branch -f foo foo" in the first place. I just don't want to regress somebody else's workflow due to my lack of imagination.

-Peff