Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] branch: suggest <remote>/<branch> on upstream slip
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 25, 2026, 21:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqfr2ae2wp.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAHwyqnXZ_eGUPOhq1hXs==uYuYbRBWw120fXRQa=apWKekxVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> writes:
Show 22 quoted lines
>> Do we still need the _if_enabled() thing here? Isn't the caller
>> gated with the same condition in this version?
>>
>> > + strbuf_release(&remote_ref);
>> > + exit(code);
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > int cmd_branch(int argc,
>> > const char **argv,
>> > const char *prefix,
>> > @@ -957,6 +980,9 @@ int cmd_branch(int argc,
>> > if (!refs_ref_exists(get_main_ref_store(the_repository), branch->refname)) {
>> > if (!argc || branch_checked_out(branch->refname))
>> > die(_("no commit on branch '%s' yet"), branch->name);
>> > + if (argc == 1 &&
>> > + advice_enabled(ADVICE_SET_UPSTREAM_FAILURE))
>> > + die_if_upstream_looks_like_remote(new_upstream, argv[0]);
>> > die(_("branch '%s' does not exist"), branch->name);
>> > }
>
> I think we do, so it will give the advice and tell the user that it
> can be disabled in the standard format.I was hoping that unconditional advise() should be sufficient, but the caller there needs to say if_enabled, even though it _knows_ that it is enabled, only to give the turn-off instructions.
I wonder if future readers would be confused just like I was, without a comment on the callsite of _if_enabled() added by this patch?
Thanks.