Re: [BUG] Possible bug in `remote set-url --add --push`

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2013, 15:50 UTC
Message-ID: <7v622xyvnd.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <50F668FB.5000805@drmicha.warpmail.net>

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 15.01.2013 16:53:
> ...
>>  * When there are more than one URLs, and there is no pushURL, then
>>    show the first URL as (fetch/push), and the remainder in a
>>    notation that says it is used only for push, but it shouldn't be
>>    the same "(push)"; the user has to be able to distinguish it from
>>    the pushURLs in a repository that also has URLs.
>
> Maybe "(fetch fallback/push)" if we do use it as a fallback? If we don't
> we probably should?

I actually think my earlier "it shouldn't be the same (push)" is not needed and probably is actively wrong. Just like you can tell between

    (only one .url)                     (both .url and .pushurl)

    origin there (fetch/push)           origin there (fetch)
                                        origin there (push)

even when the value of the URL/PushURL, i.e. "there", is the same between .url and .pushurl, you should be able to tell between

    (two .url, no .pushurl)             (one .url and one .pushurl)

    origin there (fetch/push)           origin there (fetch)
    origin another (push)               origin another (push)

So let's not make it too complex and forget about the different kind of "(push)".

A case that is a potential misconfiguration would look like:

    (two .url, one .pushurl)

    origin there (fetch)
    origin some  (unused)
    origin another (push)

I think.