Re: [PATCH] pull, fetch: add --set-upstream option

From: Matthieu Moy <git@matthieu-moy.fr>
Date: Aug 20, 2019, 08:09 UTC
Message-ID: <86zhk4b6m2.fsf@matthieu-moy.fr>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1rxgyl99.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

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

Show 22 quoted lines

>> That wouldn't make the commands really easier to type IMHO, as you would
>> still have to pull at some point, so it's:
>>
>>   git remote add main http://example.com/project-main-repo
>>   git pull --set-upstream main master
>>   
>> Vs
>>
>>   git remote add --set-upstream master main http://example.com/project-main-repo
>>   git pull
>>
>> The second is a bit shorter (saves the second instance of "master"), but
>> I tend to prefer the first to avoid the overly long "git remote add"
>> command.
>
> I do not particularly care about five extra keystrokes.  The reason
> I prefer the latter more is conceptual clarity of it saying "I use
> 'remote' to set things up, and then use 'pull' to get updated" (as
> opposed to "I use 'remote' to set things half-way up, and then use
> the first 'pull' to finish setting things up and getting updated.
> I should remember that I do not need to give --set-upstream to later
> 'pull' I used to get further updates").

That's a good argument to add a similar feature to "git remote", and it's a good idea for a microproject in the future actually. I admit I didn't consider this possibility before this discussion, thanks.

I think I'll still appreciate having the possibility to "pull --set-upstream" too:

* "git remote add" is ran once for a remote, "git pull --set-upstream"
  can be run several times for several branches.

* In practice, even when "remote add" supports "--set-upstream", I'll
  very likely forget it, and by the time I run "git pull", it'll be too
  late to add --set-upstream to my "remote add" command.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
https://matthieu-moy.fr/