Re: [PATCH] simplifying branch.c:install_branch_config() if()

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 14, 2014, 02:10 UTC
Message-ID: <20140314021052.GH15625@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <1394761558-4888-1-git-send-email-neminaa@gmail.com>

Hi,

Nemina Amarasinghe wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Nemina Amarasinghe <neminaa@gmail.com>

The above is a place to explain why this is a good change.  For example:

	When it prints a message indicating what it has done,
	install_branch_config() treats the (!remote_is_branch && origin)
	and (!remote_is_branch && !origin) cases separately.  But they
	are the same, and it uses the same message for both.

	Simplify by just checking for !remote_is_branch.

	Noticed using the magic-identical-branch-checker tool.

	Signed-off-by: ...

(That's just a first random hypothetical guess --- of course please do not use it but put your own rationale for the change there.)

[...]

Show 17 quoted lines

> --- a/branch.c
> +++ b/branch.c
> @@ -87,16 +87,11 @@ void install_branch_config(int flag, const char *local, const char *origin, cons
>  				  _("Branch %s set up to track local branch %s by rebasing.") :
>  				  _("Branch %s set up to track local branch %s."),
>  				  local, shortname);
> -		else if (!remote_is_branch && origin)
> +		else if (!remote_is_branch)
>  			printf_ln(rebasing ?
>  				  _("Branch %s set up to track remote ref %s by rebasing.") :
>  				  _("Branch %s set up to track remote ref %s."),
>  				  local, remote);
> -		else if (!remote_is_branch && !origin)
> -			printf_ln(rebasing ?
> -				  _("Branch %s set up to track local ref %s by rebasing.") :
> -				  _("Branch %s set up to track local ref %s."),
> -				  local, remote);

Is this safe? Today branch.c::create_branch checks that the argument to e.g. --set-upstream-to is either in refs/heads/* or the image of some remote, but what is making sure that remains true tomorrow?

So if changing this, I would be happier if the "if" condition were still (!remote_is_branch && origin) so the impossible case could emit a BUG.

Hope that helps, Jonathan