Re: [PATCH] remote show: fix the -n option
From: Johannes Schindelin <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:44:42
Hi, On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Olivier Marin wrote:
The perl version accepted a -n flag, to show local informations only without querying remote heads, that seems to have been lost in the C rewrite.
Would have been nice to Cc: the author of the C rewrite.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/builtin-remote.c b/builtin-remote.c index c49f00f..cb9e282 100644 --- a/builtin-remote.c +++ b/builtin-remote.c@@ -421,10 +421,10 @@ static void show_list(const char *title, struct path_list *list) static int show_or_prune(int argc, const char **argv, int prune) { - int dry_run = 0, result = 0; + int no_query = 0, result = 0;
Why?
struct option options[] = {
OPT_GROUP("show specific options"),
- OPT__DRY_RUN(&dry_run),
+ OPT_BOOLEAN('n', NULL, &no_query, "do not query remotes"),Why?
+ transport = transport_get(NULL, states.remote->url_nr > 0 ?
Please rewrap.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -486,17 +490,17 @@ static int show_or_prune(int argc, const char **argv, int prune) printf("\n"); } - if (got_states) - continue; - strbuf_init(&buf, 0); - strbuf_addf(&buf, " New remote branch%%s (next fetch will " - "store in remotes/%s)", states.remote->name); - show_list(buf.buf, &states.new); - strbuf_release(&buf); - show_list(" Stale tracking branch%s (use 'git remote prune')", - &states.stale); - show_list(" Tracked remote branch%s", - &states.tracked); + if (!got_states) { + strbuf_init(&buf, 0); + strbuf_addf(&buf, " New remote branch%%s (next fetch will " + "store in remotes/%s)", states.remote->name); + show_list(buf.buf, &states.new); + strbuf_release(&buf); + show_list(" Stale tracking branch%s (use 'git remote prune')", + &states.stale); + show_list(" Tracked remote branch%s", + &states.tracked); + } if (states.remote->push_refspec_nr) { printf(" Local branch%s pushed with 'git push'\n ",
Maybe we need two different values of got_states; not calling ls-remote and then showing things is okay, but calling ls-remote, getting an error and _then_ showing stuff is not okay, IMO. Thanks, Dscho