From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:14:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFD] making separate-remote layout easier to use
Message-ID: <20061126031421.GC29394@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vvel3yuzz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> > The question is: do we continue to use remotes/ file, or do we
> > save remotes info in the config file: remote.<name>.url,
> > remote.<name>.fetch, remote.<name>.push and branch.<name>.merge
> > (in our case '[remote "origin"]' section)?
> 
> It is not "the question"; it is irrelevant because
> $GIT_DIR/remotes/origin and [remote "origin"] are pretty much
> interchangeable, and will hopefully continue to be.

I'm all for:

 * changing the default made git-clone to be [remote "<origin>"]
 * continuing to support parsing of $GIT_DIR/remotes/*

We moved away from the $GIT_DIR/branches directory to
$GIT_DIR/remotes, yet we still support $GIT_DIR/branches in
remote handling code.  I see no reason why we cannot start to use
remote.<name>.url by default while continuing to support the older
branches and remotes formats.

For one thing the newer remote.<name>.fetch seems to make more sense
to new users than Pull: lines do.  For another it appears to be
supported since v1.4.0, which was released June 10th.  Most users
cloning a repository with >1.4.4.1 will probably only use 1.4.0
or later on that same repository, so there is probably low risk of
breakage due to the remote not being recognized by a pre-1.4.0 Git.

--