Re: [PATCH v2] remote rename: rename branch.<name>.pushRemote config values too

> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:50 PM Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bert,
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> >
> > > When renaming a remote with
> > >
> > >     git remote rename X Y
> > >
> > > Git already renames any config values from
> > >
> > >     branch.<name>.remote = X
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > >     branch.<name>.remote = Y
> > >
> > > As branch.<name>.pushRemote also names a remote, it now also renames
> > > these config values from
> > >
> > >     branch.<name>.pushRemote = X
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > >     branch.<name>.pushRemote = Y
> >
> > Should we warn if remote.pushDefault = X?
>
> AFAIU, the value of remote.pushDefault wont be renamed yet. So you
> suggest to issue a warning in case remote.pushDefault is X. But as X
> does not exists anymore after the rename, the value of
> remote.pushDefault is invalid. So why not rename it too?

> > > @@ -305,7 +309,7 @@ static int config_read_branches(const char *key, const char *value, void *cb)
> > >                               space = strchr(value, ' ');
> > >                       }
> > >                       string_list_append(&info->merge, xstrdup(value));
> > > -             } else {
> > > +             } else if (type == REBASE) {
> > >                       int v = git_parse_maybe_bool(value);
> > >                       if (v >= 0)
> > >                               info->rebase = v;
> > > @@ -315,6 +319,10 @@ static int config_read_branches(const char *key, const char *value, void *cb)
> > >                               info->rebase = REBASE_MERGES;
> > >                       else if (!strcmp(value, "interactive"))
> > >                               info->rebase = INTERACTIVE_REBASE;
> > > +             } else {
> > > +                     if (info->push_remote_name)
> > > +                             warning(_("more than one %s"), orig_key);
> > > +                     info->push_remote_name = xstrdup(value);
> >
> > It makes me a bit nervous that this is an `else` without an `if (type ==
> > PUSH_REMOTE)`... Maybe do that, just to be on the safe side, even if
> > another type is introduced in the future?
>
> I'm not a friend of this last 'else' either, but it was so to begin
> with. I'm all for changing it to an 'else if'. Though while it is
> impossible that 'type' has a value different than one from the enum, I
> would be even more comfortable with having BUG at the end.