Re: Another look?

>> > -     } else if (!sti) {
>> > -             strbuf_addf(sb,
>> > -                     _("Your branch is up to date with '%s'.\n"),
>> > -                     base);
>> > -     } else if (abf == AHEAD_BEHIND_QUICK) {
>> > +     if (abf == AHEAD_BEHIND_QUICK) {
>> >               strbuf_addf(sb,
>> >                           _("Your branch and '%s' refer to different commits.\n"),
>> > -                         base);
>> > +                         branch_name);
>> >               if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_STATUS_HINTS))
>> >                       strbuf_addf(sb, _("  (use \"%s\" for details)\n"),
>> >                                   "git status --ahead-behind");
>> > +     } else if (!ours && !theirs) {
>> > +             strbuf_addf(sb,
>> > +                     _("Your branch is up to date with '%s'.\n"),
>> > +                     branch_name);
>>
>> We used to check if there is nothing to report (i.e., !sti is a
>> signal from stat_tracking_info() that there are no differences
>> between the branches) and reported that first, so when abf was
>> checked, we knew that there are some differences.  Now, your patch
>> reverses the order so whether there is or is not a change, abf
>> codepath will always report "you have differences!".
>
> Agreed! This change was done to get rid of sti as a parameter. Maybe I
> misunderstood your previous comment around the sti.
>
> I will bring back sti as a parameter to ’format_branch_comparison’ now,
> I don’t see any other way to solve this.