From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:41:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [BUG] Possible bug in `remote set-url --add --push`
Message-ID: <20130114164114.GA3121@elie.Belkin>
In-Reply-To: <50F40316.7010308@drmicha.warpmail.net>

Michael J Gruber wrote:

> All that "set-url --push --add" does is adding a remote.foo.pushurl
> entry to the config. If there was none, there will be one after that.
>
> If there is no pushurl entry, "push" takes the url entry instead. This
> is the "default URL for push", but not a pushurl entry.

That is how it is implemented, but it is hard for me with a straight
face to say that is what most users expect.

Wouldn't the least confusing thing be to just error out for "set-url
--push --add" when there is no existing pushurl?  That way, the
operator can use plain "set-url --push" to clarify whether whether he
meant to include the pull URLs in the new pushurl set.

My two cents,
Jonathan