On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:16:52AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
+ print_ref_status('!', "[remote rejected]", ref,
+ ref->deletion ? ref->peer_ref : NULL,
+ ref->remote_status);
Gah, that should of course be:
ref->deletion ? NULL : ref->peer_ref
+ case REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT:
+ print_ref_status('!', "[remote failure]", ref,
+ ref->deletion ? ref->peer_ref : NULL,
+ "remote failed to report status");
And the same here.
I had resisted making a test that checked the exact output format,
because such things are often a pain to keep up to date. But that's two
regressions in patches I've submitted that would have been caught. Maybe
I should just pay more attention.
-Peff