From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20873C3F2C6 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 22:22:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A0F20728 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 22:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="yJMxhzRs" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727459AbgCCWWe (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:22:34 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:51430 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726766AbgCCWWd (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:22:33 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BABC77E1; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:22:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=y3/rilfLF10JehWreQXCOIyH1RM=; b=yJMxhz RszgHlIV00oPHg4FxhdLDlvEdepy4zCYfxt3aJFDd5hjQO1U+OFBWuPwr+Zyf+4v 6bLaD80YB2MR3POGogWFf5wBg4g1/L7LgKdaf8S/JCHmx6gR1zkW6BlUhNqYyHMx Ac49dBIWIeUSZ02qnPeijoMw+IfLzR9OCBXkI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Va5bnBtcV5K4tMXJ0n0epNRBstzpD47F GCfXccruTJ1WUwvkyG8WE1Bl/3057XXVESeZ9ykkMJeEp+prFRv64xRghEeln9yF VdxJ2JaambNcyqRIocxwBpppAbPiJFY0dXClQ172W+Ik+DQZBERUR9/ImcgNG6mQ HrOXgqRGhFc= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C885FC77E0; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:22:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F24B0C77DF; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 17:22:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Damien Robert , git@vger.kernel.org, Damien Robert Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] remote: drop "explicit" parameter from remote_ref_for_branch() References: <20200302133217.GA1176622@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200303161223.1870298-1-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> <20200303161223.1870298-2-damien.olivier.robert+git@gmail.com> <20200303211142.GA36275@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 14:22:26 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200303211142.GA36275@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:11:42 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 77D7BDB6-5D9D-11EA-B35C-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 09:51:07AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > But unlike remote names, there's no default case for the remote branch >> > name. >> >> Up to this point, it is well written and easy to read. I think >> "there is no case where a default name for the remoate branch is >> used" would be even more easy to read. >> >> In any case, if there is no case that default name, I understand >> that explicit is always set to 1? >> >> > In any case where we don't set "explicit", we'd just an empty >> > string anyway. >> >> Sorry, but I cannot parse this. But earlier, you established that >> there is no case that a default is used, so is there any case where >> we don't set "explicit"? I don't get it. > > Maybe more clear: > ... > Yes, that looks fine to me. Thanks for a clarification.