Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
