Re: [PATCH] When a remote is added but not fetched, tell the user.

From: Gabriel <g2p.code@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 11, 2008, 18:35 UTC
Message-ID: <20080411203501.7095b866@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0804111621080.31025@eeepc-johanness>

Le Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:21:45 +0100 (BST), Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> a écrit :

> Hi,

Hi

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Gabriel wrote:
> 
> > +	else {
> > +		printf ("Added remote repository `%s' without
> > fetching it.\n"
> > +			"Before accessing the branches of this "
> > +			"remote, run `git fetch %s' "
> > +			"or `git remote update'.\n", name, name);
> 
> Is this really, really necessary?  I was quite happy when a few
> people made Git less chatty, recently.

Not necessary, but a real usability improvement.

I think the transcript that started the thread makes it clear that having "git remote add" not fetching is not the right default. The user wants to use a remote repository, and has learned these are called "remotes". So he does not have too much trouble finding/remembering the command "git remote add <name> <url>". Now with the user's goal in mind, it makes no sense to add a remote and then not fetch it, because the user definitely wants to do something with the remote. By not fetching it, we are surprising the user (this is apparent in the transcript), maybe we are making him go through some documentation, and he will have to go through a mental checklist "did I add the remote? yes. did I fetch it? yes" later on.

The best solution is a patch that makes --fetch default to yes for git remote add and discuss that.

In case the remote wasn't fetched, adding some documentation at a place where it _will_ be needed does no harm. This is not an operation as frequent as git status or git checkout, so the three lines it takes in a terminal aren't expensive. A more experienced user that usually runs "git remote add -f", will not see it either.

-- 
Gabriel