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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2013, 06:39 UTC
Message-ID: <7vip6z54rh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vpq1755jb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> If you allow me, I'd like you to forget about the concepts for a minute, and focus on the user experience.
>> Imagine a simple hypothetical scenario in which the user wants to push to 2 distinct repositories. He already has cloned the repo from the 1st repository, thus (theoretically) all he needs to do, is to add a new repository for push. He then uses `remote set-url --add --push <2nd-repo>` (which I personally thought would suffice). However, if he tries to push a new commit to this remote, it would be pushed _only_ to the 2nd-repo.
>
> The primary reason behind push-url was that
>
>  (1) usually you push to and fetch from the same, so no pushUrl is
>      ever needed, just a single Url will do (this is often true for
>      cvs/svn style shared repository workflow); and
>
>  (2) sometimes you want to fetch from one place and push to another
>      (this is often true for "fetch from upstream, push to my own
>      and ask upstream to pull from it" workflow), and in that case
>      you want pushUrl in addition to Url.  Most importantly, in this
>      case, you do *NOT* want to push to Url.  You only push to
>      pushUrl.
>
> Setting *one* pushURL is a way to say "That URL I fetch from is
> *not* the place I want to push (I may not even be able to push
> there); when I say 'push', push there instead".  Your proposed
> semantics will make it impossible to arrange such an asymmetric
> setting.

Now I think I finally see where that misunderstanding comes from. It is "remote -v" that is misdesigned.

    $ git clone ../there here
    $ cd here
    $ git remote -v
    origin /var/tmp/there (fetch)
    origin /var/tmp/there (push)

This is totally bogus.  It should report something like this:

    $ git remote -v
    origin /var/tmp/there (fetch/push)

Then after running "git remote set-url --push origin ../another" we should see

    $ git remote -v
    origin /var/tmp/there (fetch)
    origin /var/tmp/another (push)

which would make it clear that the original fetch/push came from the (1) usuall you push and fetch from the same place so there is only one setting, and the two lines came from the (2) sometimes you need a separate places to fetch from and push to.

At this point, if you say "set-url --push origin ../third", then "another" will disappear and gets replaced by "third"; if you instead say "set-url --add --push origin ../third", then we will see two (push) lines, in addition to one (fetch), making it clear that you are still in (2) above, fetching from and pushing to different places, and having two places to push to.

I misread your response

    From: Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: [BUG] Possible bug in `remote set-url --add --push`
    Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:09:35 -0200
    Message-ID: <CAN8TAOvP_HX6BEK86aYoX-kVqWDmsbyptxTT2nk+fx+Ut1Tojg@mail.gmail.com>

where you showed that there was only remote.origin.url (and no pushurl) in the first step, and somehow thought you had a remote.origin.pushurl in the first place.