Re: [PATCH 3/4] completion: fix branch.autosetup(merge|rebase)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 3, 2014, 19:13 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa9fcnajr.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkWK0mGJ2V9V=KzuaAraNX-edEVBEpp-9DcAaBF-dZCqp6bsw@mail.gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> You seem to be calling it "incorrect" to give the same degree of
>> completion for a branch the user named "autosetupmerge" as another
>> branch "topic", but I think it is incorrect not to, so I cannot tell
>> if we are agreeing or disagreeing.
>
> No, what's incorrect is providing completions for
>
>   $ git config branch.autosetupmerge.<TAB>
>
> when no branch called "autosetupmerge" exists.  The purpose of the
> hunk (which I now removed) was to prevent such completions, ...

Hmph, but in a repository without 'foo', I just did

	$ git config branch.foo.<TAB>
        branch.foo.merge          branch.foo.rebase         
        branch.foo.mergeoptions   branch.foo.remote

and got offered the above. How would that removed hunk that special cased those autosetupmerge etc. helped such case?

If it _were_ about correctness, and the definition of correctness were that "completing branch.foo.<TAB> to offer these four variables is wrong until refs/heads/foo materializes", the "fix" would have checked if there already is such a branch and refused to complete otherwise, not special case a few known names such as autosetup*.

As there is no reason to forbid setting configuration variables for a branch 'foo' you are going to create before you actually create it with "git branch foo", I do not necessarily agree with the above definition of correctness, either.

So it was completely bogus hunk and it is good we noticed and decided to remove it, I guess.