Re: [PATCH] fetch: Only call a new ref a "branch" if it's under refs/heads/.

> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:29:29AM -0400, marcnarc@xiplink.com wrote:
> 
>>  builtin/fetch.c |    9 +++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c
>> index 65f5f9b..57be58a 100644
>> --- a/builtin/fetch.c
>> +++ b/builtin/fetch.c
>> @@ -298,8 +298,13 @@ static int update_local_ref(struct ref *ref,
>>  			what = _("[new tag]");
>>  		}
>>  		else {
>> -			msg = "storing head";
>> -			what = _("[new branch]");
>> +			if (!prefixcmp(ref->name, "refs/heads/")) {
>> +				msg = "storing head";
>> +				what = _("[new branch]");
>> +			} else {
>> +				msg = "storing ref";
>> +				what = _("[new ref]");
>> +			}
>>  			if ((recurse_submodules != RECURSE_SUBMODULES_OFF) &&
>>  			    (recurse_submodules != RECURSE_SUBMODULES_ON))
>>  				check_for_new_submodule_commits(ref->new_sha1);
> 
> It looks like you kept the behavior the same with respect to
> recurse_submodules, which will continue to run for everything except
> tags. Which is probably a good choice, since your patch only wanted to
> deal with the status message, but I am left to wonder: if submodules
> were intended to be recursed for branches but not tags, what should
> happen for other types of refs? Was it intentional that they fell into
> the "branch" category here, or were they following the same failure to
> distinguish that the message-writing code had?
> 
> This code block handles only new refs.  If you look at the code below,
> updates of existing refs (forced or not) will happen for all refs,
> including tags.
> 
> Jens, can you double-check the intended logic?