On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:14:07AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 02:42:43PM +0000, Jeff Hostetler wrote:

quoted

Extend stat_tracking_info() to return 1 when the branch is
not up to date with its upstream branch and only return 0
when they are equal.

This means that callers all need to be updated, but there's no change
that the compiler could catch. You've updated all of the calls here, but
any topics in flight would need to be fixed, too.

I don't see any any in pu, but there are a number of long-running forks
hanging around these days.

Is it worth introducing a small change so that any other callers which
get merged in force a human to look at them? I'm wondering if we could
just re-order the "upstream_name" argument or something.

Having seen the change in the next patch, I wonder if we should add a
flag field to specify "don't bother doing extra work" rather than
passing NULL for the ours/theirs parameters. I.e., most callers would
become:

  if (stat_tracking_info(branch, &ours, &theirs, &base, 0) >= 0)

and the ones you touch later in the series would become:

  
  if (stat_tracking_info(branch, NULL, NULL, &base, TRACKING_QUICK) >= 0)

or similar. And then any newly added calls would get flagged by the
compiler as missing the final parameter.

-Peff