# Re: [PATCH] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option 5 messages from 2016-08-10 to 2016-08-11. Participants: Junio C Hamano, Jonathan Nieder, Stefan Beller. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/43043 ## Junio C Hamano, 2016-08-10 18:00 Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqd1lg5wsq.fsf%40gitster.mtv.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <20160810172800.23575-1-sbeller@google.com> ``` Stefan Beller writes: > When a user asked for a detached HEAD specifically with `--detach`, > we do not need to give advice on what a detached HEAD state entails as > we can assume they know what they're getting into as they asked for it. Makes sense; I agree that "Don't be noisy if you did exactly what you were told to do." is a very sensible principle. > Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller > --- > builtin/checkout.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c > index 27c1a05..fa2dce5 100644 > --- a/builtin/checkout.c > +++ b/builtin/checkout.c > @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ static void update_refs_for_switch(const struct checkout_opts *opts, > update_ref(msg.buf, "HEAD", new->commit->object.oid.hash, NULL, > REF_NODEREF, UPDATE_REFS_DIE_ON_ERR); > if (!opts->quiet) { > - if (old->path && advice_detached_head) > + if (old->path && advice_detached_head && !opts->force_detach) > detach_advice(new->name); > describe_detached_head(_("HEAD is now at"), new->commit); > } ``` ## Jonathan Nieder, 2016-08-10 17:32 Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option Message-ID: <20160810173218.GB14758@google.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20160810173218.GB14758%40google.com In-Reply-To: <20160810172800.23575-1-sbeller@google.com> ``` Stefan Beller wrote: > When a user asked for a detached HEAD specifically with `--detach`, > we do not need to give advice on what a detached HEAD state entails as > we can assume they know what they're getting into as they asked for it. Example? Tests? > Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller > --- > builtin/checkout.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) I like the idea. Thanks for writing it. > diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c > index 27c1a05..fa2dce5 100644 > --- a/builtin/checkout.c > +++ b/builtin/checkout.c > @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ static void update_refs_for_switch(const struct checkout_opts *opts, > update_ref(msg.buf, "HEAD", new->commit->object.oid.hash, NULL, > REF_NODEREF, UPDATE_REFS_DIE_ON_ERR); > if (!opts->quiet) { > - if (old->path && advice_detached_head) > + if (old->path && advice_detached_head && !opts->force_detach) > detach_advice(new->name); > describe_detached_head(_("HEAD is now at"), new->commit); > } > -- ``` ## Stefan Beller, 2016-08-10 17:28 Subject: [PATCH] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option Message-ID: <20160810172800.23575-1-sbeller@google.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20160810172800.23575-1-sbeller%40google.com ``` When a user asked for a detached HEAD specifically with `--detach`, we do not need to give advice on what a detached HEAD state entails as we can assume they know what they're getting into as they asked for it. Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller --- builtin/checkout.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c index 27c1a05..fa2dce5 100644 --- a/builtin/checkout.c +++ b/builtin/checkout.c @@ -655,7 +655,7 @@ static void update_refs_for_switch(const struct checkout_opts *opts, update_ref(msg.buf, "HEAD", new->commit->object.oid.hash, NULL, REF_NODEREF, UPDATE_REFS_DIE_ON_ERR); if (!opts->quiet) { - if (old->path && advice_detached_head) + if (old->path && advice_detached_head && !opts->force_detach) detach_advice(new->name); describe_detached_head(_("HEAD is now at"), new->commit); } -- 2.9.2.665.gdb8bb2f ``` ## Stefan Beller, 2016-08-10 22:46 Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAGZ79kb%2BPvU5yKfr9D0j13JWeo1mqcW%3DCWvVD88UrEeg1WBTpQ%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20160810173218.GB14758@google.com> ``` On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Stefan Beller wrote: > >> When a user asked for a detached HEAD specifically with `--detach`, >> we do not need to give advice on what a detached HEAD state entails as >> we can assume they know what they're getting into as they asked for it. > > Example? Tests? There are no tests for the advice things IIUC. What do you mean by example? Stefan ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2016-08-11 18:09 Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout: do not mention detach advice for explicit --detach option Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqzioj18kg.fsf%40gitster.mtv.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: ``` Stefan Beller writes: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Stefan Beller wrote: >> >>> When a user asked for a detached HEAD specifically with `--detach`, >>> we do not need to give advice on what a detached HEAD state entails as >>> we can assume they know what they're getting into as they asked for it. >> >> Example? Tests? > > There are no tests for the advice things IIUC. There seem to already be tests that explicitly sets advice.* to true like in t7201 and t7512, but even if there weren't any existing ones, it would be appropriate to make sure that an explicit --detach does not trigger the advice, even when advice.detachedHEAD left unconfigured (or set to true), given that doing so is the whole purpose of this patch, I would think. ```