From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 04:55:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] remote: add new --fetch option for set-url
Message-ID: <xmqqy4qzubf2.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141125040826.GC19301@peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> However, I think what removed the confusion for me in your --only=both
> proposal was the presence of a "both" option, since it made it more
> clear that is not what no-option means. So what about just "--push",
> "--fetch", and "--both"?

I think that is the set that is most sensible, at least
syntactically, among the ones I heard so far in this thread.

However, one thing still makes me wonder....

After doing "set-url --fetch" and nothing else, because the user
never said "--both" or "--push", does the user get a configuration
where "git push" fails?  Or does "set-url --fetch" still gives us
remote.nick.url and causes "git push" to also go there?

If that is the case, then did addition of "--fetch" achieve anything
to reduce confusion?

After doing "set-url --push" and nothing else, I suspect that having
remote.nick.pushURL alone without remote.nick.URL will make "git fetch"
to fail, which would be in line with my expectation.  I just expected
anything we do in the name of symmetry or consistency would work the
same/symmetric way, I cannot see how "set-url --fetch" would work to
make its effect symmetric to the "set-url --push" one.

Puzzled...