> 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

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

Reply via email to