Re: some git confusion (where git's advice didn't help)
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- May 14, 2019, 11:21 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20190514112115.GA26957@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <5CDA9063020000A10003131D@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:54:43AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
Show 22 quoted lines
> > git branch --track origin/f-gcc-4.8 > Branch origin/f-gcc-4.8 set up to track local branch next. > > git fetch > > git branch > f-systemd > integration > master > * next > origin/f-gcc-4.8 > > git merge f-gcc-4.8 > merge: f-gcc-4.8 - not something we can merge > > Did you mean this? > origin/f-gcc-4.8 > > git merge origin/f-gcc-4.8 > warning: refname 'origin/f-gcc-4.8' is ambiguous. > Already up-to-date. > > ### So actually this advice wasn't helpful at all. Cause of the > problem most likely was "git branch --track origin/f-gcc-4.8" that > "imported" the branch under the same name as the remote branch is > referenced.
Right, that was the source of the problem. Having both "refs/heads/origin/f-gcc-4.8" and "refs/remotes/origin/f-gcc-4.8" is going to lead to confusion, and you're best off deleting the mistaken branch as soon as possible.
But I agree we could be more helpful in the messages.
The "did you mean?" advice just blindly says "oh, you asked for X and refs/remotes/ABC/X exists, so let's suggest ABC/X", without checking for ambiguities. It should probably do this:
diff --git a/help.c b/help.c index a9e451f2ee..108ca54af3 100644 --- a/help.c +++ b/help.c @@ -759,7 +759,8 @@ static int append_similar_ref(const char *refname, const struct object_id *oid, /* A remote branch of the same name is deemed similar */ if (skip_prefix(refname, "refs/remotes/", &remote) && !strcmp(branch, cb->base_ref)) - string_list_append(cb->similar_refs, remote); + string_list_append(cb->similar_refs, + shorten_unambiguous_ref(refname, 1)); return 0; } which would print "ABC/X" in most cases, but "remotes/ABC/X" for your ambiguous case. Incidentally, the existing code also has a memory problem! It blindly skips past "refs/remotes/" in the refname and saves the pointer away in a NODUP string-list. But that refname pointer isn't ours, and isn't guaranteed to last past our for_each_ref() callback. The hunk above fixes it because shorten_unambiguous_ref() always returns a newly allocated string. :) I also think the "warning: refname ... is ambiguous" message would probably be a bit more helpful if it showed _which_ candidates it found (and which one it chose!). -Peff