From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 21:13:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option
Message-ID: <20160815211354.vsyg3lpira6pttom@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd1l9g2lv.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 02:10:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Guilty as charged.  I do agree that this is over-engineered.
> 
> Let's discard 1/2 and amend 2/2 with this incremental.

Looks good (though I really am OK the other way if people feel
strongly).

> diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c
> index 2a32b5f..337c35a 100644
> --- a/builtin/checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
> @@ -656,8 +656,7 @@ static void update_refs_for_switch(const struct checkout_opts *opts,
>  			   REF_NODEREF, UPDATE_REFS_DIE_ON_ERR);
>  		if (!opts->quiet) {
>  			if (old->path &&
> -			    (advice_detached_head == 1 ||
> -			     (advice_detached_head == -1 && !opts->force_detach)))
> +			    advice_detached_head == 1 && !opts->force_detach)

Maybe s/== 1//?

That's more idiomatic, though maybe you were future-proofing in case we
turn it into a tri-state later. :)

-Peff