Re: [PATCH v3] fetch: optionally allow disabling FETCH_HEAD update

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:

>>  * So, it becomes much smaller by punting the whole configuration
>>    thing, as we do not need the extra code for config parsing and
>>    there is no need for code to override the user configuration when
>>    driving "git fetch" from "git pull".
>
> Sounds good. I'll incorporate this patch into my next version,
> except it seems you dropped this test:

Yup.  

As we are not touching "pull" at all, the test I removed would make
as much sense as a hypothetical one where its "git pull" is replaced
with "git cat-file" or any other unrelated subcommand, and that is
why I removed it.  But I am OK if you resurrect it---everybody thinks
"fetch" and "pull" are closely related after all.

Thanks.



> diff --git a/t/t5521-pull-options.sh b/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
> index 159afa7ac8..db1a381cd9 100755
> --- a/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
> +++ b/t/t5521-pull-options.sh
> @@ -85,6 +85,13 @@ test_expect_success 'git pull --cleanup errors early on invalid argument' '
>         test -s err)
>  '
>  
> +test_expect_success 'git pull --no-write-fetch-head fails' '
> +       mkdir clonedwfh &&
> +       (cd clonedwfh && git init &&
> +       test_expect_code 129 git pull --no-write-fetch-head "../parent" >out 2>err &&
> +       test_must_be_empty out &&
> +       test_i18ngrep "no-write-fetch-head" err)
> +'
>  
>  test_expect_success 'git pull --force' '
>         mkdir clonedoldstyle &&
>
> which I changed "test_must_fail" to "test_expect_code 129" to
> demonstrate that this is a usage error, not just any error.
>
> Thanks,
> -Stolee