Re: [PATCH] worktree add: improve message for ambiguous remote branch name
Show 36 quoted lines
>
> Le 10 août 2026 à 17:36, Yoichi Nakayama <yoichi.nakayama@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 10:08 PM D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> -static char *dwim_branch(const char *path, char **new_branch)
>>> +static char *dwim_branch(const struct add_opts *opts, const char *path, char **new_branch)
>>> {
>>> int n;
>>> int branch_exists;
>>> @@ -781,8 +791,14 @@ static char *dwim_branch(const char *path, char **new_branch)
>>>
>>> *new_branch = branchname;
>>> if (guess_remote) {
>>> + int num_matches = 0;
>>> struct object_id oid;
>>> - char *remote = unique_tracking_name(*new_branch, &oid, NULL);
>>> + char *remote = unique_tracking_name(*new_branch, &oid, &num_matches);
>>> + if (!opts->quiet && !remote && num_matches > 1) {
>>> + if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_CHECKOUT_AMBIGUOUS_REMOTE_BRANCH_NAME))
>>> + advise(_(message_advice_ambiguous_remote_tracking_branch));
>>> + warning(_("'%s' matched multiple (%d) remote tracking branches\n"), branchname, num_matches);
>>> + }
>>> return remote;
>>> }
>>> return NULL;
>>
>> I suppose the extra warning won't hurt anyone's workflow :) so that's good.
>
> I removed the change (advise and warn) here in the latest patch. But I am still
> wondering what I should do. I think a warning would be excessive if
> there is no match,
> but the user might want to know if there are multiple matches.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Yoichi NAKAYAMASorry if I was unclear: I don’t know what hits this particular code path offhand, and I don’t think adding the warning is wrong! I meant « as opposed to dying, a warning won’t break anyone but will let them know of potentially unintended consequences », maybe.
I’m not particularly invested in how we signal ambiguity, but if we don’t have a documented policy for resolving it in a particular way then I agree we should signal it.
Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>