t2024: Fix inconsequential typos

Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
t3200: Minor fix when preparing for tracking failure

We're testing that trying to --track a ref that is not covered by any remote
refspec should fail. For that, we want to have refs/remotes/local/master
present, but we also want the remote.local.fetch refspec to NOT match
refs/remotes/local/master (so that the tracking setup will fail, as intended).
However, when doing "git fetch local" to ensure the existence of
refs/remotes/local/master, we must not already have changed remote.local.fetch
so as to cause refs/remotes/local/master not to be fetched. Therefore, set
remote.local.fetch to refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/local/* BEFORE we fetch, and
then reset it to refs/heads/s:refs/remotes/local/s AFTER we have fetched
(but before we test --track).

Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Refer to branch.<name>.remote/merge when documenting --track

Make it easier for readers to find the actual config variables that
implement the "upstream" relationship.

Suggested-by: Per Cederqvist <cederp@opera.com>
Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
t3200: Add test demonstrating minor regression in 41c21f2

In 41c21f2 (branch.c: Validate tracking branches with refspecs instead of
refs/remotes/*), we changed the rules for what is considered a valid tracking
branch (a.k.a. upstream branch). We now use the configured remotes and their
refspecs to determine whether a proposed tracking branch is in fact within
the domain of a remote, and we then use that information to deduce the
upstream configuration (branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge).

However, with that change, we also check that - in addition to a matching
refspec - the result of mapping the tracking branch through that refspec
(i.e. the corresponding ref name in the remote repo) happens to start with
"refs/heads/". In other words, we require that a tracking branch refers to
a _branch_ in the remote repo.

Now, consider that you are e.g. setting up an automated building/testing
infrastructure for a group of similar "source" repositories. The build/test
infrastructure consists of a central scheduler, and a number of build/test
"slave" machines that perform the actual build/test work. The scheduler
monitors the group of similar repos for changes (e.g. with a periodic
"git fetch"), and triggers builds/tests to be run on one or more slaves.
Graphically the changes flow between the repos like this:

  Source #1 -------v          ----> Slave #1
                             /
  Source #2 -----> Scheduler -----> Slave #2
                             \
  Source #3 -------^          ----> Slave #3

        ...                           ...

The scheduler maintains a single Git repo with each of the source repos set
up as distinct remotes. The slaves also need access to all the changes from
all of the source repos, so they pull from the scheduler repo, but using the
following custom refspec:

  remote.origin.fetch = "+refs/remotes/*:refs/remotes/*"

This makes all of the scheduler's remote-tracking branches automatically
available as identical remote-tracking branches in each of the slaves.

Now, consider what happens if a slave tries to create a local branch with
one of the remote-tracking branches as upstream:

  git branch local_branch --track refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch

Git now looks at the configured remotes (in this case there is only "origin",
pointing to the scheduler's repo) and sees refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch
matching origin's refspec. Mapping through that refspec we find that the
corresponding remote ref name is "refs/remotes/source-1/some_branch".
However, since this remote ref name does not start with "refs/heads/", we
discard it as a suitable upstream, and the whole command fails.

This patch adds a testcase demonstrating this failure by creating two
source repos ("a" and "b") that are forwarded through a scheduler ("c")
to a slave repo ("d"), that then tries create a local branch with an
upstream. See the next patch in this series for the exciting conclusion
to this story...

Reported-by: Per Cederqvist <cederp@opera.com>
Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
branch.c: Relax unnecessary requirement on upstream's remote ref name

When creating an upstream relationship, we use the configured remotes and
their refspecs to determine the upstream configuration settings
branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge. However, if the matching
refspec does not have refs/heads/<something> on the remote side, we end
up rejecting the match, and failing the upstream configuration.

It could be argued that when we set up an branch's upstream, we want that
upstream to also be a proper branch in the remote repo. Although this is
typically the common case, there are cases (as demonstrated by the previous
patch in this series) where this requirement prevents a useful upstream
relationship from being formed. Furthermore:

 - We have fundamentally no say in how the remote repo have organized its
   branches. The remote repo may put branches (or branch-like constructs
   that are insteresting for downstreams to track) outside refs/heads/*.

 - The user may intentionally want to track a non-branch from a remote
   repo, by using a branch and configured upstream in the local repo.

Relaxing the checking to only require a matching remote/refspec allows the
testcase introduced in the previous patch to succeed, and has no negative
effect on the rest of the test suite.

This patch fixes a behavior (arguably a regression) first introduced in
41c21f2 (branch.c: Validate tracking branches with refspecs instead of
refs/remotes/*) on 2013-04-21 (released in >= v1.8.3.2).

Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>