Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes:
> @@ -1269,6 +1270,16 @@ int cmd_checkout(int argc, const char **argv, const
> char *prefix)
> if (opts.patch_mode || opts.pathspec.nr) {
> int ret = checkout_paths(&opts, new_branch_info.name,
> &dwim_remotes_matched);
> + if (ret && dwim_remotes_matched > 1 &&
> + advice_checkout_ambiguous_remote_branch_name)
> + advise(_("The argument '%s' matched more than one
> remote tracking branch.\n"
> + "We found %d remotes with a reference that
> matched. So we fell back\n"
> + "on trying to resolve the argument as a path,
> but failed there too!\n"
> + "\n"
> + "Perhaps you meant fully qualify the branch
> name? E.g. origin/<name>\n"
> + "instead of <name>?"),
> + argv[0],
> + dwim_remotes_matched);
> return ret;
Do we give "checkout -p no-such-file" the above wall of text?
Somehow checkout_paths(), which is "we were given a tree-ish and
pathspec and told to grab the matching paths out of it and stuff
them to the index and the working tree", is a wrong place to be
doing the "oh, what the caller thought was pathspec may turn out to
be a rev, so check that too for such a confused caller". Shouldn't
the caller be doing all that (which would mean we wan't need to pass
"remotes-matched" to the function, as the helper has nothing to do
with deciding which arg is the tree-ish).
