> If you feel like continuing on this series, converting the warning() > into a die() would be a much more productive use of time (but if you > don't, I do not see any reason not to take the patches you've posted).
I'd be happy to keep working on this. In fact, I think I have a patch for this ready. But just to clarify: > I notice that the warning comes from install_branch_config, which gets > used both for "branch -u", but also in the "side effect" case I > mentioned above. Is it possible to trigger this as part of such a case? > I think maybe "git branch -f --track foo foo" would do it. If so, we > should perhaps include a test that it does not break if we upgrade the > "-u" case to an error. Do you mean that install_branch_config should continue to emit a warning in the "side effect" case? I'm not sure I agree--how is "git branch -f --track foo foo" less erroneous than "git branch -u foo refs/heads/foo"? Perhaps I'm missing some insight on how "--track" is used. The tests appear to already cover all instances in which install_branch_config is called, and bumping the warning to an error does not cause any test failures. - Brian Gesiak -- 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
