From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:05:00 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] remote: add new --fetch option for set-url
Message-ID: <xmqqbnnwurmr.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141124225457.GA9942@peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> My complaint is that you have three possible options to provide: --push,
> --fetch, or no option at all. And "--fetch" sometimes behaves like no
> option, and sometimes not. Which is the confusing/non-orthogonal part.
>
>> I can understand that --fetch sounds a bit weird, what about this
>> natural translation:
>> 
>>     "git remote: set the URL (only the fetch one) for NAME to URL"
>>     git remote set-url --only=fetch NAME URL
>> 
>>     "git remote: set the URL (only the push one) for NAME to URL"
>>     git remote set-url --only=push NAME URL
>>     (obsoletes --push)
>> 
>>     "git remote: set the URL (both) for NAME to URL"
>>     git remote set-url --only=both NAME URL
>>     (it would be nice if --only=both (weird!) can be removed in the
>>     future such that the option is more natural)
>> 
>>     "git remote: set the URL for NAME to URL"
>>     git remote set-url NAME URL
>>     (current behavior: YOU git guru knows what I do right?)
>
> Yeah, I think that addresses my concern (because it explicitly leaves
> no-option as a historical curiosity, and not as an implicit version of
> "--both").

Fine by me, too.