Re: [PATCH 1/2] git remote add: allow re-adding remotes with the same URL

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > When adding a remote, we make sure that the remote does not exist
> > already.
> >
> > For convenience, we allow re-adding remotes with the same URLs.
> > This also handles the case that there is an "[url ...] insteadOf"
> > setting in the config.
> >
> > It might seem like a mistake to compare against remote->url[0] without
> > verifying that remote->url_nr >=1, but at this point a missing URL has
> > been filled by the name already, therefore url_nr cannot be zero.
> >
> > Noticed by Anastas Dancha.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
> > ---
> >  builtin/remote.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c
> > index 46ecfd9..9168c83 100644
> > --- a/builtin/remote.c
> > +++ b/builtin/remote.c
> > @@ -180,7 +180,8 @@ static int add(int argc, const char **argv)
> >  	url = argv[1];
> >  
> >  	remote = remote_get(name);
> > -	if (remote && (remote->url_nr > 1 || strcmp(name, remote->url[0]) ||
> > +	if (remote && (remote->url_nr > 1 || (strcmp(name, remote->url[0]) &&
> > +				strcmp(url, remote->url[0])) ||
> >  			remote->fetch_refspec_nr))
> >  		die(_("remote %s already exists."), name);
> 
> When we need to fold an overlong line, it is easier to read if the
> line is folded at an operator with higher precedence, i.e. this line
> 
>         if (A && (B || (C && D) || E))
> 
> folded like this
> 
>         if (A && (B || (C &&
>                    D) ||
>             E))
> 
> is harder to read than when folded like this
> 
>         if (A && (B ||
>                   (C && D) ||
>                    E))
> 
> So, it is an error if we have "remote" and if
> 
>  (1) URL for the remote is defined already twice or more; or
>  (2) we are adding a nickname (i.e. not a URL) and it is different
>      from what we already have; or
>  (3) we already have fetch_refspec
> 
> The way I read the log message's rationale was that this is to allow
> replacing an existing remote's URL; wouldn't checking the existence
> of fetch_refspec go against that goal?
> 
> Puzzled.  Either the code is wrong or I am mislead by the
> explanation in the log.