Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote show: fix the -n option

From: Olivier Marin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:16:21 +0200

Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> 
> No, I think that the information about stale branches and if the branches 
> are up-to-date is missing.  In that sense, it is not like "route -n" at 
> all, which just skips one convenience step, but really a dry run, because 
> the result is different (as opposed to differently displayed).

Am I wrong if I say that dry run is for commands that modify something? For
example there is no "diff --dry-run" probably because diff does not change
anything. A dry run has no real meaning for diff.

This the same for "git remote show": it's a read-only command, it just display
a summary of the remote and does not modify anything. With -n, it just skips
the ls-remote (read-only) step and yes the result can be different, some parts
can be missing. Exactly like "route -n", we skip the dns resolution, the host
names are missing.

Now, if we talk about "prune", I completely agree. A --dry-run flag make sens.
But it's not the same thing than the "show -n" one. For what reason would I
want to ask "prune" to skip the ls-remote step? What I would find more useful
is to make "prune" show what it is doing (like "update") and add a --dry-run
option to say "just show me, but do not touch anything". And we can even add a
-p flag to "update" to say "prune at the same time".

> It is a too long line (way over 80 characters).  So yes, you should wrap 
> after the NULL here.

Will fix. (my tabs were only 4 spaces long)

>> In fact, it seems that get_ref_states() always return 0 or just die when 
>> an error occur. And that transport_get_remote_refs() never return if 
>> something goes wrong.
>>
>> So, what about removing got_states and use !no_query instead ?
> 
> Hrmpf.  I did not mean to die() there...

I don't understand. Is it ok or not?

Thanks for your comments,
Olivier.