Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> 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).
Well, upon closer inspection adding *dwim_remotes_matched parameter
to checkout_paths() done in an earlier step seems to be totally
bogus and only serves the purpose of confusing reviewers. The
function does not touch the pointer in any way---it does not use the
pointer to return its findings, and it does not use an earlier
findings to affect its behaviour by dereferencing it.
The dwim_remotes_matched is set by an earlier call to
parse_branchname_arg(), which does gain an int* parameter in this
series. And that addition _does_ make sense. That codepath is
where the "do we have many remotes that could match, or none, or
unique?" determination is made.
