Re: [PATCH 2/3] fetch: honor the user-provided refspecs when pruning refs

On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 12:26 -0400, Jeff King wrote:

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 11:21:46PM +0200, Carlos Martín Nieto wrote:

quoted

If the user gave us refspecs on the command line, we should use those
when deciding whether to prune a ref instead of relying on the
refspecs in the config.

Previously, running

    git fetch --prune origin refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master

would delete every other tag under the origin namespace because we

I assume you mean s/tag/branch/ in the last line?

Yeah, maybe ref would be better?

quoted

---
 builtin/fetch.c  |    6 ++--
 builtin/remote.c |    2 +-
 remote.c         |   78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 remote.h         |    3 +-
 4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Tests?

Good point.

quoted

 static int get_stale_heads_cb(const char *refname,
 	const unsigned char *sha1, int flags, void *cb_data)
 {
 	struct stale_heads_info *info = cb_data;
 	struct refspec refspec;
+	int ret;
 	memset(&refspec, 0, sizeof(refspec));
 	refspec.dst = (char *)refname;
-	if (!remote_find_tracking(info->remote, &refspec)) {
-		if (!((flags & REF_ISSYMREF) ||
-		    string_list_has_string(info->ref_names, refspec.src))) {
-			struct ref *ref = make_linked_ref(refname, &info->stale_refs_tail);
-			hashcpy(ref->new_sha1, sha1);
-		}
+
+	/*
+	 * If the user speicified refspecs on the command line, we
+	 * should only use those to check. Otherwise, look in the
+	 * remote's configuration for the branch.
+	 */
+	if (info->ref_count)
+		ret = find_in_refs(info->refs, info->ref_count, &refspec);
+	else
+		ret = remote_find_tracking(info->remote, &refspec);

Minor typo in the comment. But more importantly, this feels like a very
low-level place to be thinking about things like what the user gave us
on the command line.

Shouldn't get_stale_heads not get a remote at all, and just get a set of
refspecs? Those should be the minimal information it needs to get its
answer, right?

OK, so take a step back and figure out what we want the rules to be
before we call get_stale_heads. It does sound like a more elegant
approach. I was trying to disrupt the callers as little as possible, but
then again, there's only two. Will change.

   cmn