Re: [PATCH] Try harder to find a remote when on a detached HEAD or non-tracking branch.

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:55:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 12-06-18 06:12 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> That reliance of "origin" is what made me think that "not guessing
>>>> and blindly assuming" a wrong thing to do.
>>>
>>> I think git can do better than erroring out, though.
>>>
>>>> It is OK that your build usesdetached HEAD, but if that is the case
>>>> shoudln't it be the one deciding which specific remote it wants to
>>>> take the updated sources from, and telling Git to do so?
>>>
>>> Sure, but I feel it did that already when it cloned.  It seems reasonable for
>>> the submodules to default to using the remote specified when the super-repo
>>> was cloned.
>>
>> I do not have a strong opinion either way, other than that I would
>> prefer predictable behaviour over "works most of the time provided
>> if the user does X, otherwise does this random thing".  And coming
>> from that standpoint, erroring out when there needs a guess involved
>> is certainly more predictable---it is a cop-out option for me in
>> areas of the system I do not have strong preferences.
>>
>> If you can work with submodule people (it is good that you Cc'ed
>> Jens) to come up with a solution to make everything always use
>> 'origin' when unconfigured in a consistent way, without breaking
>> existing users who rely on the current behaviour, that would be
>> good.  Or a solution with a predictable behaviour you come up with
>> may end up being something more involved than "just use 'origin'
>> when you do not know". As long as the end result can be easily
>> explained to end users, I wouldn't have any objection.
> 
> Using the first configured remote as a fallback also sounds quite
> arbitrary to me. Your current HEAD might have nothing to do with that
> remote.

> Before falling back to origin how about guessing the remote from the
> first branch thats contained in HEAD?
>
> To me that sounds quite natural. The first branch could be ambiguous so
> we would have to come up with some ordering. Maybe a depth search and
> first parents first? Or a breadth first search with younger generations
> first and then first parents first?