Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] promisor-remote: clarify that a remote is ignored

From: Patrick Steinhardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 13:20:57 +0100

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 09:05:07AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> In should_accept_remote() when a remote is ignored, we might tell users
> why it is ignored in a warning, but we don't tell them that the remote
> is actually ignored.
> 
> Let's clarify that, so users have a better idea of what's actually
> happening.

Interesting that this doesn't result in any test changes. Don't we have
test coverage for `should_accept_remote()`?

> diff --git a/promisor-remote.c b/promisor-remote.c
> index 3f8aeee787..f5c4d41155 100644
> --- a/promisor-remote.c
> +++ b/promisor-remote.c
> @@ -660,15 +660,16 @@ static int should_accept_remote(enum accept_promisor accept,
>  		BUG("Unhandled 'enum accept_promisor' value '%d'", accept);
>  
>  	if (!remote_url || !*remote_url) {
> -		warning(_("no or empty URL advertised for remote '%s'"), remote_name);
> +		warning(_("no or empty URL advertised for remote '%s', "
> +			  "ignoring this remote"), remote_name);
>  		return 0;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!strcmp(p->url, remote_url))
>  		return all_fields_match(advertised, config_info, 0);
>  
> -	warning(_("known remote named '%s' but with URL '%s' instead of '%s'"),
> -		remote_name, p->url, remote_url);
> +	warning(_("known remote named '%s' but with URL '%s' instead of '%s', "
> +		  "ignoring this remote"), remote_name, p->url, remote_url);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

The change itself seems sensible to me.

Patrick