From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:05:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] checkout: tell "parse_remote_branch" which command is calling it
Message-ID: <aYYRRBdCrbWmy1Gj@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <20260129190616.645471-3-gitster@pobox.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 11:06:16AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c
> index 4f189fde48..17f31c30b2 100644
> --- a/builtin/checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
> @@ -1299,14 +1300,30 @@ static char *parse_remote_branch(const char *arg,
>  
>  	if (!remote && num_matches > 1) {
>  	    if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_CHECKOUT_AMBIGUOUS_REMOTE_BRANCH_NAME)) {
> +		    const char *cmdname;
> +
> +		    switch (which_command) {
> +		    case CHECKOUT_CHECKOUT:
> +			    cmdname = "checkout";
> +			    break;
> +		    case CHECKOUT_SWITCH:
> +			    cmdname = "switch";
> +			    break;
> +		    default:
> +			    BUG("command <%d> should not reach parse_remote_branch",
> +				which_command);
> +			    break;
> +		    }

`parse_remote_branch()` is only called by `parse_branchname_arg()`,
which in turn is only called if `opts->accept_ref` is truish. And as
that value only gets set to 1 in git-checkout(1) and git-switch(1) we
know that we indeed don't have to care about git-restore(1).

>  		    advise(_("If you meant to check out a remote tracking branch on, e.g. 'origin',\n"
>  			     "you can do so by fully qualifying the name with the --track option:\n"
>  			     "\n"
> -			     "    git checkout --track origin/<name>\n"
> +			     "    git %s --track origin/<name>\n"
>  			     "\n"
>  			     "If you'd like to always have checkouts of an ambiguous <name> prefer\n"
>  			     "one remote, e.g. the 'origin' remote, consider setting\n"
> -			     "checkout.defaultRemote=origin in your config."));
> +			     "checkout.defaultRemote=origin in your config."),
> +			   cmdname);
>  	    }
>  
>  	    die(_("'%s' matched multiple (%d) remote tracking branches"),

Yup, makes sense.

Overall this patch series looks good to me. There's been the one
micronit in the preceding commit, but I really don't think it warrants
a new version.

Thanks!

Patrick