Re: [RFC PATCH] remote: add --fetch option to git remote set-url

> Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > This adds the --fetch option to `git remote set-url` such that when
> > executed we move the remote.*.url to remote.*.pushurl and set
> > remote.*.url to the given url argument.
> >
> 
> I suspect this is a horrible idea from end-user's point of view.
> "set-url --push" is used to SET pushURL instead of setting URL and
> does not MOVE anything.  Why should the end user expect and remember
> "set-url --fetch" works very differently?  
>

> If there is a need for a "--move-URL-to-pushURL-and-set-pushURL"
> short-hand to avoid having to use two commands
> 
> 	git remote set-url --push $(git remote --get-url origin) origin
> 	git remote set-url $there origin
> 
> it should not be called "--fetch", which has a strong connotation of
> being an opposite of existing "--push", but something else.  And
> then we need to ask ourselves if we also need such a short-hand to
> "--move-pushURL-to-URL-and-set-URL" operation.  The answer to the
> last question would help us decide if (1) this combined operation is
> a good idea to begin with and (2) what is the good name for such an
> operation.
> 
> Assuming that the short-hand operation is a good idea in the first
> place, without deciding what the externally visible good name for it
> is, let's read on.
> 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If add_mode, we will be appending to remote.*.url so we shouldn't move the urls over.
> > +	 * If pushurls exist, we don't need to move the urls over to pushurl.
> > +	 */
> > +	move_fetch_to_push = fetch_mode && !add_mode && !remote->pushurl_nr;
> 
> Should this kind of "the user asked for --fetch, but sometimes it is
> not appropriate to honor that request" be done silently like this?
> 
> Earlier you had a check like this:
> 
> > +	if (push_mode && fetch_mode)
> > +		die(_("--push --fetch doesn't make sense"));
> 
> If a request to "--fetch" is ignored when "--add" is given, for
> example, shouldn't the combination also be diagnosed as "not making
> sense, we'd ignore your wish to use the --fetch option"?  Similarly
> for the case where there already is pushurl defined for the remote.
> 
> This is a different tangent on the same line, but it could be that
> the user wants to have two (or more) pushURLs because the user wants
> to push to two remotes at the same time with "git push this-remote",
> so silently ignoring "--force" may not be the right thing in the
> first place.  We may instead need to make the value of URL to an
> extra pushURL entry (if we had one, we now have two).
>