From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E101F619 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 16:29:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730413AbgCCQ3K (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:29:10 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com ([209.85.128.66]:55038 "EHLO mail-wm1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730411AbgCCQ3K (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 11:29:10 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id i9so2564630wml.4 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 08:29:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:date:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=9+12buehby7qs0N/+nwJIpHsFOmxykW7CQC6gHidF3A=; b=g7NEm/o3EotINQ7VJPwlUudUe0otG12cSMcAK9hzWDwZH1Fy+tpxmDLVqyNmpKw51x SY+gKBQzy11QIjV7uyi4AZGzfa59Yt2BMTPyEeNcUZgHvdEcZrhOl8pvvxoJ+AZnd11Z 9pBAltk1hcOwMD/r6Wzumogy7mrBsMbN6C7pbCdw615OaILmANNkHAwNC7kqcD1OwWaa vvCODjkBb4Bu13ODZ3mm0hmQKqdsfosSX6mKisGMZjwfk/W+fG07zKXGPxrpjNC+8xtv 4EPYmtf2LaVG7AvMshd0NaKzg5aY3YDbbKyeLC5tPO58UWj/McEQE/nVvLu5IKTt+462 XH3Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=9+12buehby7qs0N/+nwJIpHsFOmxykW7CQC6gHidF3A=; b=QNDz/H+ZR5E+g4I2IEzn6Dw4KKZg3oU6K8aaliVyBNLkdowfRPGhEUPqoXlhSaGAnd W/nN+FMos/lrBnDXAsqtxFlA57lGJ/H6vwsz0FyM7GU9dyJzVSrvc0ke4IzxuVQTcPzh ulUNgE8hOW/6XiORLDGZK1vUvy/U892Bkr52jkbQ+d0jQZONRsz1oTmt3Pw8OgDxoyeY WtcoBCJaui9AbKAYkExCVnqshLDdfSAPSbrn42Xom7EQBTXTU0lAkHgkltXnzSCyBLRi 0A0Eo4fzXr5LChMbL6lOecmD5+nDr4J2RBZBIIyzdiI2HrNXXRMcnJLmbq7oKHajxpkR IiBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3DyHOK6pfJtWvs/P7r1KQczzLYiaBsByTfUPuyakgNDvEcYGA1 7VeHzS+lRS4UJTQiUNGkhbMPFqmB92Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsSsCZSqnjyQtBQe8Z1fpjCS2/JRM7odddNEvJHLqEXKfYJvh1Da6widXcXp8rLt+UUhUTihg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:c344:: with SMTP id t65mr4871977wmf.97.1583252949201; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 08:29:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from feanor (87-231-246-247.rev.numericable.fr. [87.231.246.247]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t83sm4707629wmf.43.2020.03.03.08.29.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 03 Mar 2020 08:29:08 -0800 (PST) From: Damien Robert X-Google-Original-From: Damien Robert Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:29:06 +0100 To: git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] remote.c: fix handling of %(push:remoteref) Message-ID: <20200303162906.xadbaeaq4nurqsem@feanor> X-PGP-Key: http://www.normalesup.org/~robert/pro/files/Damien_Olivier_Robert.asc X-Start-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 17:25:29 +0100 References: <20200302133217.GA1176622@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200303161223.1870298-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> <20200303161223.1870298-3-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200303161223.1870298-3-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org I have some remarks/questions: >From Damien Robert, Tue 03 Mar 2020 at 17:12:23 (+0100) : > + if (remote->push.nr) { > + char *dst; > + dst = apply_refspecs(&remote->push, branch->refname); > + if (!dst) > + return NULL; > + return dst; > + } Should I simply `return apply_refspecs(&remote->push, branch->refname);` here, or is it a good form to always check for a NULL return value even if we do nothing with it? > + case PUSH_DEFAULT_MATCHING: > + case PUSH_DEFAULT_CURRENT: > + return branch->refname; Here I follow the logic of branch_get_push1, but the case of push.default=matching is not quite correct, because we never check that we have a matching remote branch. On the other hand we cannot check this until we contact the remote, so I don't know how we could get around that. -- Damien Robert http://www.normalesup.org/~robert/pro