Re: [PATCH 2/4] stat_tracking_info: return +1 when branch and upstream differ

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 20, 2017, 16:37 UTC
Message-ID: <20171220163711.GA5551@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20171220161407.GB31149@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:14:07AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:42:43PM +0000, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
> 
> > Extend stat_tracking_info() to return 1 when the branch is
> > not up to date with its upstream branch and only return 0
> > when they are equal.
> 
> This means that callers all need to be updated, but there's no change
> that the compiler could catch. You've updated all of the calls here, but
> any topics in flight would need to be fixed, too.
> 
> I don't see any any in pu, but there are a number of long-running forks
> hanging around these days.
> 
> Is it worth introducing a small change so that any other callers which
> get merged in force a human to look at them? I'm wondering if we could
> just re-order the "upstream_name" argument or something.

Having seen the change in the next patch, I wonder if we should add a flag field to specify "don't bother doing extra work" rather than passing NULL for the ours/theirs parameters. I.e., most callers would become:

  if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &ours, &theirs, &base, 0) >= 0)

and the ones you touch later in the series would become:

  
  if (stat_tracking_info(branch, NULL, NULL, &base, TRACKING_QUICK) >= 0)

or similar. And then any newly added calls would get flagged by the compiler as missing the final parameter.

-Peff