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

From: Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2013, 16:15 UTC
Message-ID: <CABURp0rR_wB6vcjrZajQU_=AVVvBq-aTGpggh5XxdCMYis3-ag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v4nii5tp2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>
>> That being said, I don't mind changing the behaviour of set-url.
>
> I do not think we want to change the behaviour of set-url.

I agree with Michael that changing the set-url behavior would be appropriate here. If I say "--add" this pushUrl, don't I mean to create an additional url which is pushed to?

I agree that it makes the config situation messy; this is currently a "clean" sequence, in that it leaves the config unchanged after both steps are completed:

  git remote set-url --add --push origin /tmp/foo
  git remote set-url --delete --push origin /tmp/foo

If the behavior is changed like Michael suggested, it would not leave the config clean (unless heroic steps were taken to keep track). But I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. In simple command sequences, the results would be clean and the only behavior change is that the initial "--add" really acts like "add" and not "replace". But more complex sequences could be devised which were affected by this change.

I'm curious, Junio. Do you think the set-url behavior is correct as-is, or that changing it will cause breakage for some workflows, or that it complicates the operation too much for people who are already used to the config layout?

Phil