Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Be more careful when determining whether a remote was configured
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jan 19, 2017, 21:31 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20170119213100.g72ml7r2khu7bvey@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <1605031b76025f4bd0e485705c34a25557bb75a1.1484860744.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:20:02PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> There is only one caller of remote_is_configured() (in `git fetch`) that > may want to take remotes into account even if they were configured > outside the repository config; all other callers essentially try to > prevent the Git command from overwriting settings in the repository > config. > > To accommodate that fact, the remote_is_configured() function now > requires a parameter that states whether the caller is interested in all > remotes, or only in those that were configured in the repository config.
Just to make sure I understand the issue, the problem is that:
git config --global remote.foo.url whatever git fetch --multiple foo bar
would not work without this part of the patch?
I'm trying to figure out why "fetch --multiple" wouldn't just take a url in the first place. I guess it is because multiple fetch is useless without refspecs (since otherwise you're just writing to FETCH_HEAD, which gets immediately overwritten). I wonder if that test really should be:
diff --git a/builtin/fetch.c b/builtin/fetch.c index c85f3471d..9024cfffa 100644 --- a/builtin/fetch.c +++ b/builtin/fetch.c @@ -1014,9 +1014,9 @@ static int add_remote_or_group(const char *name, struct string_list *list) git_config(get_remote_group, &g); if (list->nr == prev_nr) { struct remote *remote; - if (!remote_is_configured(name)) - return 0; remote = remote_get(name); + if (!remote->fetch_refspec_nr) + return 0; string_list_append(list, remote->name); } return 1; It's outside the scope of your patches, so I think we are OK to just ignore it. But if you want to pursue it, it avoids having to add the extra parameter to remote_is_configured(). > Many thanks to Jeff King whose tireless review helped with settling for > nothing less than the current strategy. Just how I wanted to be immortalized in git's commit history. ;) > builtin/fetch.c | 2 +- > builtin/remote.c | 14 +++++++------- > remote.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > remote.h | 4 ++-- > t/t5505-remote.sh | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) Patch itself looks OK to me. -Peff