threads / bug / 32602

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

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

## tl;dr

27 messages between Jan 12, 2013 and Jan 16, 2013.

replies: 26people: 8as markdown or json

Jardel Weyrich· Jan 12, 2013, 05:44 UTC · lore
Hi,

I believe `remote set-url --add --push` has a bug. Performed tests with v1.8.0.1 and v1.8.1 (Mac OS X).

Quoting the relevant part of the documentation:
Show 6 quoted lines
> set-url
>     Changes URL remote points to. Sets first URL remote points to matching regex <oldurl> (first URL if no <oldurl> is given) to <newurl>. If <oldurl> doesn’t match any URL, error occurs and nothing is changed.
>
>     With --push, push URLs are manipulated instead of fetch URLs.
>     With --add, instead of changing some URL, new URL is added.
>     With --delete, instead of changing some URL, all URLs matching regex <url> are deleted. Trying to delete all non-push URLs is an error.
Here are some steps to reproduce:
1. Show the remote URLs

jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch) origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)

2. Add a new push URL for origin
jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add --push origin \
    /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2
3. Check what happened

jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch) origin /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 (push)

4. Missing an URL? Re-add the original one
jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add --push origin \
    /Volumes/sandbox/test
5. Check what happened, again

jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch) origin /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 (push) origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)

In step 2, Git replaced the original push URL instead of adding a new one. But it seems to happen only the first time I use `remote set-url --add --push`. Re-adding the original URL using the same command seems to work properly. And FWIW, if I delete (with "set-url --delete") both URLs push, Git restores the original URL.

Please, could someone try to reproduce?
- jw
Junio C Hamano· Jan 12, 2013, 07:10 UTC · re: Jardel Weyrich · lore

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

Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
Show 30 quoted lines
> I believe `remote set-url --add --push` has a bug. Performed tests
> with v1.8.0.1 and v1.8.1 (Mac OS X).
>
> Quoting the relevant part of the documentation:
>
>> set-url
>>     Changes URL remote points to. Sets first URL remote points to matching regex <oldurl> (first URL if no <oldurl> is given) to <newurl>. If <oldurl> doesn’t match any URL, error occurs and nothing is changed.
>>
>>     With --push, push URLs are manipulated instead of fetch URLs.
>>     With --add, instead of changing some URL, new URL is added.
>>     With --delete, instead of changing some URL, all URLs matching regex <url> are deleted. Trying to delete all non-push URLs is an error.
>
> Here are some steps to reproduce:
>
> 1. Show the remote URLs
>
> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)
>
> 2. Add a new push URL for origin
>
> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add --push origin \
>     /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2
>
> 3. Check what happened
>
> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 (push)

The original pushurl was replaced with the additional one, instead of being left and the new one getting added. That looks certainly wrong.

However, the result of applying the attached patch (either to v1.7.12 or v1.8.1) still passes the test and I do not think it is doing anything differently from what you described above.

What do you get from
	git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin'

in steps 1. and 3. in your procedure? This question is trying to tell if your bug is in "git remote -v" or in "git remote set-url".

-- >8 --
From 0f6cbc67db926e97707ae732b02e790b4604508e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:04:16 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] t5505: adding one pushurl from jweyrich
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
---
 t/t5505-remote.sh | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh
index c03ffdd..b31c5bb 100755
--- a/t/t5505-remote.sh
+++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh
@@ -901,6 +901,25 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-url --push --add aaa' '
 	cmp expect actual
 '
 
+test_expect_success 'remote set-url --push --add' '
+	git config remote.jweyrich.url /Volumes/sandbox/test &&
+	git config remote.jweyrich.pushurl /Volumes/sandbox/test &&
+	git config remote.jweyrich.fetch "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/jweyrich/*" &&
+
+	added=/Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 &&
+	{
+		git config -l | grep "^remote\.jweyrich\." &&
+		echo "remote.jweyrich.pushurl=$added"
+	} | sort >expect &&
+
+	git remote set-url --add --push jweyrich "$added" &&
+	git config -l | grep "^remote\.jweyrich\." | sort >actual &&
+
+	test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+	git remote -v | grep "^jweyrich" # this is just for debugging
+'
+
 test_expect_success 'remote set-url --push bar aaa' '
 	git remote set-url --push someremote bar aaa &&
 	echo foo >expect &&

-- 
1.8.1.421.g6236851
Jardel Weyrich· Jan 12, 2013, 08:09 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

Step 1:

jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch) origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)

jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin' remote.origin.url=/Volumes/sandbox/test remote.origin.fetch=+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*

Step 3:

jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add --push origin /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch) origin /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2/ (push)

jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin' remote.origin.url=/Volumes/sandbox/test remote.origin.fetch=+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* remote.origin.pushurl=/Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2/

After that, if I do a commit in test_clone1 and try to push to origin, it pushes only to the test_clone2 rather than pushing to both test and test_clone2 (it's a bare repo, sorry for using a misleading name).

Is `remote.<remote_name>.pushurl` required for the primary URL as well? If not, then git-push is not handling that information as it should.

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 91 quoted lines
> Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I believe `remote set-url --add --push` has a bug. Performed tests
>> with v1.8.0.1 and v1.8.1 (Mac OS X).
>>
>> Quoting the relevant part of the documentation:
>>
>>> set-url
>>>     Changes URL remote points to. Sets first URL remote points to matching regex <oldurl> (first URL if no <oldurl> is given) to <newurl>. If <oldurl> doesn’t match any URL, error occurs and nothing is changed.
>>>
>>>     With --push, push URLs are manipulated instead of fetch URLs.
>>>     With --add, instead of changing some URL, new URL is added.
>>>     With --delete, instead of changing some URL, all URLs matching regex <url> are deleted. Trying to delete all non-push URLs is an error.
>>
>> Here are some steps to reproduce:
>>
>> 1. Show the remote URLs
>>
>> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
>> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
>> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)
>>
>> 2. Add a new push URL for origin
>>
>> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add --push origin \
>>     /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2
>>
>> 3. Check what happened
>>
>> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
>> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
>> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 (push)
>
> The original pushurl was replaced with the additional one, instead
> of being left and the new one getting added.  That looks certainly
> wrong.
>
> However, the result of applying the attached patch (either to
> v1.7.12 or v1.8.1) still passes the test and I do not think it is
> doing anything differently from what you described above.
>
> What do you get from
>
>         git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin'
>
> in steps 1. and 3. in your procedure?  This question is trying to
> tell if your bug is in "git remote -v" or in "git remote set-url".
>
> -- >8 --
> From 0f6cbc67db926e97707ae732b02e790b4604508e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:04:16 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] t5505: adding one pushurl from jweyrich
>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> ---
>  t/t5505-remote.sh | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/t/t5505-remote.sh b/t/t5505-remote.sh
> index c03ffdd..b31c5bb 100755
> --- a/t/t5505-remote.sh
> +++ b/t/t5505-remote.sh
> @@ -901,6 +901,25 @@ test_expect_success 'remote set-url --push --add aaa' '
>         cmp expect actual
>  '
>
> +test_expect_success 'remote set-url --push --add' '
> +       git config remote.jweyrich.url /Volumes/sandbox/test &&
> +       git config remote.jweyrich.pushurl /Volumes/sandbox/test &&
> +       git config remote.jweyrich.fetch "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/jweyrich/*" &&
> +
> +       added=/Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 &&
> +       {
> +               git config -l | grep "^remote\.jweyrich\." &&
> +               echo "remote.jweyrich.pushurl=$added"
> +       } | sort >expect &&
> +
> +       git remote set-url --add --push jweyrich "$added" &&
> +       git config -l | grep "^remote\.jweyrich\." | sort >actual &&
> +
> +       test_cmp expect actual &&
> +
> +       git remote -v | grep "^jweyrich" # this is just for debugging
> +'
> +
>  test_expect_success 'remote set-url --push bar aaa' '
>         git remote set-url --push someremote bar aaa &&
>         echo foo >expect &&
> --
> 1.8.1.421.g6236851
Junio C Hamano· Jan 12, 2013, 08:23 UTC · re: Jardel Weyrich · lore

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

Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Step 1:
>
> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
> origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
> origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)
>
> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin'
> remote.origin.url=/Volumes/sandbox/test
> remote.origin.fetch=+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
>
> Step 3:
>
> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add
> --push origin /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2
> origin /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
> origin /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2/ (push)
>
> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin'
> remote.origin.url=/Volumes/sandbox/test
> remote.origin.fetch=+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
> remote.origin.pushurl=/Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2/

So "remote -v" is not lying (we only see one pushurl after Step 3 above) and "set-url" is not working correctly on your box in a way that I cannot reproduce X-<.

> ...
> Is `remote.<remote_name>.pushurl` required for the primary URL as
> well?
What do you mean by "primary URL"?
Sascha Cunz· Jan 12, 2013, 08:44 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2013, 23:10:36 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Show 50 quoted lines
> Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
> > I believe `remote set-url --add --push` has a bug. Performed tests
> > with v1.8.0.1 and v1.8.1 (Mac OS X).
> > 
> > Quoting the relevant part of the documentation:
> >> set-url
> >> 
> >>     Changes URL remote points to. Sets first URL remote points to
> >>     matching regex <oldurl> (first URL if no <oldurl> is given) to
> >>     <newurl>. If <oldurl> doesn’t match any URL, error occurs and
> >>     nothing is changed.
> >>     
> >>     With --push, push URLs are manipulated instead of fetch URLs.
> >>     With --add, instead of changing some URL, new URL is added.
> >>     With --delete, instead of changing some URL, all URLs matching regex
> >>     <url> are deleted. Trying to delete all non-push URLs is an error.> 
> > Here are some steps to reproduce:
> > 
> > 1. Show the remote URLs
> > 
> > jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
> > origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
> > origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)
> > 
> > 2. Add a new push URL for origin
> > 
> > jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add --push
> > origin \> 
> >     /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2
> > 
> > 3. Check what happened
> > 
> > jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
> > origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
> > origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 (push)
> 
> The original pushurl was replaced with the additional one, instead
> of being left and the new one getting added.  That looks certainly
> wrong.
> 
> However, the result of applying the attached patch (either to
> v1.7.12 or v1.8.1) still passes the test and I do not think it is
> doing anything differently from what you described above.
> 
> What do you get from
> 
> 	git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin'
> 
> in steps 1. and 3. in your procedure?  This question is trying to
> tell if your bug is in "git remote -v" or in "git remote set-url".
I'm not sure, if there is a bug at all. According to man git-push:
	The <pushurl> is used for pushes only. It is optional and defaults to
   <url>.
	(From the section REMOTES -> Named remote in configuration file)
the command:
    git remote add foo git@foo-fetch.org/some.git

will set "remote.foo.url" to "git@foo-fetch.org". Subsequently, fetch and push will use git@foo-fetch.org as url. Fetch will use this url, because "remote.foo.url" explicitly sets this. push will use it in absence of a "remote.foo.pushurl".

Now, we're adding a push-url:
    git remote set-url --add --push foo git@foo-push.org/some.git
Relevant parts of config are now looking like:
	[remote "foo"]
        url = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
        pushurl = git@foo-push.org/some.git

Since, pushurl is now given explicitly, git push will use that one (and only that one).

If we add another push-url now,
    git remote set-url --add --push foo git@foo-push-also.org/some.git
the next git-push will push to foo-push.org and foo-push-also.org.

Now, using --set-url --delete on both of these urls restores the original state: only "remote.foo.url" is set; meaning implicitly pushurl defaults to url again.

To me this is exactly what Jardel was observing:
> In step 2, Git replaced the original push URL instead of adding a new
> one. But it seems to happen only the first time I use `remote set-url
> --add --push`. Re-adding the original URL using the same command seems
> to work properly.
> And FWIW, if I delete (with "set-url --delete") both URLs push, Git
> restores the original URL.
Or am I missing something here?
Might be that the "bug" actually is that the expectation was
	git remote add foo git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
should have created a config like:
	[remote "foo"]
        url = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
        pushurl = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
since that is what "git remote -v" reports.

If that is the case, we might want to amend the output of 'git remote -v' with the information that a pushurl is not explicitly given and thus defaults to url.

Sascha
Jardel Weyrich· Jan 12, 2013, 09:33 UTC · re: Sascha Cunz · lore

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

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Sascha Cunz <sascha-ml@babbelbox.org> wrote:
Show 97 quoted lines
> Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2013, 23:10:36 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
>> > I believe `remote set-url --add --push` has a bug. Performed tests
>> > with v1.8.0.1 and v1.8.1 (Mac OS X).
>> >
>> > Quoting the relevant part of the documentation:
>> >> set-url
>> >>
>> >>     Changes URL remote points to. Sets first URL remote points to
>> >>     matching regex <oldurl> (first URL if no <oldurl> is given) to
>> >>     <newurl>. If <oldurl> doesn’t match any URL, error occurs and
>> >>     nothing is changed.
>> >>
>> >>     With --push, push URLs are manipulated instead of fetch URLs.
>> >>     With --add, instead of changing some URL, new URL is added.
>> >>     With --delete, instead of changing some URL, all URLs matching regex
>> >>     <url> are deleted. Trying to delete all non-push URLs is an error.>
>> > Here are some steps to reproduce:
>> >
>> > 1. Show the remote URLs
>> >
>> > jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
>> > origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
>> > origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)
>> >
>> > 2. Add a new push URL for origin
>> >
>> > jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add --push
>> > origin \>
>> >     /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2
>> >
>> > 3. Check what happened
>> >
>> > jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
>> > origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
>> > origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 (push)
>>
>> The original pushurl was replaced with the additional one, instead
>> of being left and the new one getting added.  That looks certainly
>> wrong.
>>
>> However, the result of applying the attached patch (either to
>> v1.7.12 or v1.8.1) still passes the test and I do not think it is
>> doing anything differently from what you described above.
>>
>> What do you get from
>>
>>       git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin'
>>
>> in steps 1. and 3. in your procedure?  This question is trying to
>> tell if your bug is in "git remote -v" or in "git remote set-url".
>
> I'm not sure, if there is a bug at all. According to man git-push:
>
>         The <pushurl> is used for pushes only. It is optional and defaults to
>    <url>.
>         (From the section REMOTES -> Named remote in configuration file)
>
> the command:
>     git remote add foo git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>
> will set "remote.foo.url" to "git@foo-fetch.org". Subsequently, fetch and push
> will use git@foo-fetch.org as url.
> Fetch will use this url, because "remote.foo.url" explicitly sets this. push
> will use it in absence of a "remote.foo.pushurl".
>
> Now, we're adding a push-url:
>     git remote set-url --add --push foo git@foo-push.org/some.git
>
> Relevant parts of config are now looking like:
>         [remote "foo"]
>         url = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>         pushurl = git@foo-push.org/some.git
>
> Since, pushurl is now given explicitly, git push will use that one (and only
> that one).
>
> If we add another push-url now,
>     git remote set-url --add --push foo git@foo-push-also.org/some.git
>
> the next git-push will push to foo-push.org and foo-push-also.org.
>
> Now, using --set-url --delete on both of these urls restores the original
> state: only "remote.foo.url" is set; meaning implicitly pushurl defaults to
> url again.
>
> To me this is exactly what Jardel was observing:
>
>> In step 2, Git replaced the original push URL instead of adding a new
>> one. But it seems to happen only the first time I use `remote set-url
>> --add --push`. Re-adding the original URL using the same command seems
>> to work properly.
>
>> And FWIW, if I delete (with "set-url --delete") both URLs push, Git
>> restores the original URL.
>
> Or am I missing something here?
You're right. However, as I quoted earlier, the git-remote man-page states:
       set-url
           Changes URL remote points to. <suppressed>
           With --push, push URLs are manipulated instead of fetch URLs.
           With --add, instead of changing some URL, new URL is added.

It explicitly mentions that it should **add a new URL**. So when I do `git remote set-url --add --push origin git://another/repo.git`, I expect git-push to use both the default push URL and the new one. Or am I misinterpreting the man-page?

Show 16 quoted lines
>
> Might be that the "bug" actually is that the expectation was
>
>         git remote add foo git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>
> should have created a config like:
>
>         [remote "foo"]
>         url = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>         pushurl = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>
> since that is what "git remote -v" reports.
>
> If that is the case, we might want to amend the output of 'git remote -v' with
> the information that a pushurl is not explicitly given and thus defaults to
> url.
Correct. Adding a remote doesn't automatically generate a pushurl for it.

To me, it seems that git-push checks for the existence of pushurl's in the config, and if it finds any, it ignores the defaul push URL during the actual push. In better words, it pushes only to pushurls, if it finds any, otherwise it pushes to the default URL.

To comply with the statements in the git-remote man-page, git-remote should add a pushurl configuration containing the default push URL, along with the one passed to `set-url --add --push`. Or git-push should _not ignore_ the default URL in the presence of pushurls, effectively pushing to both. These are the solutions I can think of right now, supposing I'm correct about the cause(s).

>
> Sascha
Michael J Gruber· Jan 14, 2013, 13:07 UTC · re: Jardel Weyrich · lore

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

Jardel Weyrich venit, vidit, dixit 12.01.2013 10:33:
Show 144 quoted lines
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Sascha Cunz <sascha-ml@babbelbox.org> wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 11. Januar 2013, 23:10:36 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>>> Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I believe `remote set-url --add --push` has a bug. Performed tests
>>>> with v1.8.0.1 and v1.8.1 (Mac OS X).
>>>>
>>>> Quoting the relevant part of the documentation:
>>>>> set-url
>>>>>
>>>>>     Changes URL remote points to. Sets first URL remote points to
>>>>>     matching regex <oldurl> (first URL if no <oldurl> is given) to
>>>>>     <newurl>. If <oldurl> doesn’t match any URL, error occurs and
>>>>>     nothing is changed.
>>>>>
>>>>>     With --push, push URLs are manipulated instead of fetch URLs.
>>>>>     With --add, instead of changing some URL, new URL is added.
>>>>>     With --delete, instead of changing some URL, all URLs matching regex
>>>>>     <url> are deleted. Trying to delete all non-push URLs is an error.>
>>>> Here are some steps to reproduce:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Show the remote URLs
>>>>
>>>> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
>>>> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
>>>> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (push)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Add a new push URL for origin
>>>>
>>>> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote set-url --add --push
>>>> origin \>
>>>>     /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2
>>>>
>>>> 3. Check what happened
>>>>
>>>> jweyrich@pharao:test_clone1 [* master]$ git remote -v
>>>> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test (fetch)
>>>> origin  /Volumes/sandbox/test_clone2 (push)
>>>
>>> The original pushurl was replaced with the additional one, instead
>>> of being left and the new one getting added.  That looks certainly
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> However, the result of applying the attached patch (either to
>>> v1.7.12 or v1.8.1) still passes the test and I do not think it is
>>> doing anything differently from what you described above.
>>>
>>> What do you get from
>>>
>>>       git config -l | grep '^remote\.origin'
>>>
>>> in steps 1. and 3. in your procedure?  This question is trying to
>>> tell if your bug is in "git remote -v" or in "git remote set-url".
>>
>> I'm not sure, if there is a bug at all. According to man git-push:
>>
>>         The <pushurl> is used for pushes only. It is optional and defaults to
>>    <url>.
>>         (From the section REMOTES -> Named remote in configuration file)
>>
>> the command:
>>     git remote add foo git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>>
>> will set "remote.foo.url" to "git@foo-fetch.org". Subsequently, fetch and push
>> will use git@foo-fetch.org as url.
>> Fetch will use this url, because "remote.foo.url" explicitly sets this. push
>> will use it in absence of a "remote.foo.pushurl".
>>
>> Now, we're adding a push-url:
>>     git remote set-url --add --push foo git@foo-push.org/some.git
>>
>> Relevant parts of config are now looking like:
>>         [remote "foo"]
>>         url = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>>         pushurl = git@foo-push.org/some.git
>>
>> Since, pushurl is now given explicitly, git push will use that one (and only
>> that one).
>>
>> If we add another push-url now,
>>     git remote set-url --add --push foo git@foo-push-also.org/some.git
>>
>> the next git-push will push to foo-push.org and foo-push-also.org.
>>
>> Now, using --set-url --delete on both of these urls restores the original
>> state: only "remote.foo.url" is set; meaning implicitly pushurl defaults to
>> url again.
>>
>> To me this is exactly what Jardel was observing:
>>
>>> In step 2, Git replaced the original push URL instead of adding a new
>>> one. But it seems to happen only the first time I use `remote set-url
>>> --add --push`. Re-adding the original URL using the same command seems
>>> to work properly.
>>
>>> And FWIW, if I delete (with "set-url --delete") both URLs push, Git
>>> restores the original URL.
>>
>> Or am I missing something here?
> 
> You're right. However, as I quoted earlier, the git-remote man-page states:
> 
>        set-url
>            Changes URL remote points to. <suppressed>
>            With --push, push URLs are manipulated instead of fetch URLs.
>            With --add, instead of changing some URL, new URL is added.
> 
> It explicitly mentions that it should **add a new URL**.
> So when I do `git remote set-url --add --push origin
> git://another/repo.git`, I expect git-push to use both the default
> push URL and the new one. Or am I misinterpreting the man-page?
> 
>>
>> Might be that the "bug" actually is that the expectation was
>>
>>         git remote add foo git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>>
>> should have created a config like:
>>
>>         [remote "foo"]
>>         url = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>>         pushurl = git@foo-fetch.org/some.git
>>
>> since that is what "git remote -v" reports.
>>
>> If that is the case, we might want to amend the output of 'git remote -v' with
>> the information that a pushurl is not explicitly given and thus defaults to
>> url.
> 
> Correct. Adding a remote doesn't automatically generate a pushurl for it.
> 
> To me, it seems that git-push checks for the existence of pushurl's in
> the config, and if it finds any, it ignores the defaul push URL during
> the actual push. In better words, it pushes only to pushurls, if it
> finds any, otherwise it pushes to the default URL.
> 
> To comply with the statements in the git-remote man-page, git-remote
> should add a pushurl configuration containing the default push URL,
> along with the one passed to `set-url --add --push`. Or git-push
> should _not ignore_ the default URL in the presence of pushurls,
> effectively pushing to both. These are the solutions I can think of
> right now, supposing I'm correct about the cause(s).
> 
>>
>> Sascha

All that "set-url --push --add" does is adding a remote.foo.pushurl entry to the config. If there was none, there will be one after that.

If there is no pushurl entry, "push" takes the url entry instead. This is the "default URL for push", but not a pushurl entry.

It seems to me that everything works as designed, and that the man page talk about "push URLs" can be read in two ways, one of which is correct (and which is obvious if you know the above, i.e. the "config background") and one of which is incorrect (and which may be obvious if you read just that man page paragraph).

Michael
Jonathan Nieder· Jan 14, 2013, 16:41 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

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

Michael J Gruber wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> All that "set-url --push --add" does is adding a remote.foo.pushurl
> entry to the config. If there was none, there will be one after that.
>
> If there is no pushurl entry, "push" takes the url entry instead. This
> is the "default URL for push", but not a pushurl entry.

That is how it is implemented, but it is hard for me with a straight face to say that is what most users expect.

Wouldn't the least confusing thing be to just error out for "set-url --push --add" when there is no existing pushurl? That way, the operator can use plain "set-url --push" to clarify whether whether he meant to include the pull URLs in the new pushurl set.

My two cents, Jonathan

Junio C Hamano· Jan 14, 2013, 19:09 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

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

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> It seems to me that everything works as designed, and that the man page
> talk about "push URLs" can be read in two ways,...

Hmph, but I had an impression that Jardel's original report was that one of the --add --pushurl was not adding but was replacing. If that was a false alarm, everything you said makes sense to me.

Thanks.
Jardel Weyrich· Jan 15, 2013, 05:20 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

On 14/01/2013, at 17:09, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> It seems to me that everything works as designed, and that the man page
>> talk about "push URLs" can be read in two ways,...
> 
> Hmph, but I had an impression that Jardel's original report was that
> one of the --add --pushurl was not adding but was replacing.  If
> that was a false alarm, everything you said makes sense to me.
> 
> Thanks.
I failed to explain my reasoning. But I learned quite a bit from this discussion. I understood that the defaul push url is not used by git-push when there's at least one pushurl for a given remote.

If that's by design, I still fail to comprehend the exact reason. If you allow me, I'd like you to forget about the concepts for a minute, and focus on the user experience. Imagine a simple hypothetical scenario in which the user wants to push to 2 distinct repositories. He already has cloned the repo from the 1st repository, thus (theoretically) all he needs to do, is to add a new repository for push. He then uses `remote set-url --add --push <2nd-repo>` (which I personally thought would suffice). However, if he tries to push a new commit to this remote, it would be pushed _only_ to the 2nd-repo.

This is exactly what I thought to be a bug. If it's intended to work the way I described in the previous scenario, I'll have to ask and/or research to understand the reason behind this -- Why does having a pushurl make git-push _not_ to push to the default push location (the 1st repo in my scenario) as well? Could you describe a scenario in which that behavior is useful and/or better than the behavior I expected?
Please, pardon me for not being as clear as needed. I appreciate your time on this. Thank you all.
Sent from my mobile.
Junio C Hamano· Jan 15, 2013, 06:22 UTC · re: Jardel Weyrich · lore

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

Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
> If you allow me, I'd like you to forget about the concepts for a minute, and focus on the user experience.
> Imagine a simple hypothetical scenario in which the user wants to push to 2 distinct repositories. He already has cloned the repo from the 1st repository, thus (theoretically) all he needs to do, is to add a new repository for push. He then uses `remote set-url --add --push <2nd-repo>` (which I personally thought would suffice). However, if he tries to push a new commit to this remote, it would be pushed _only_ to the 2nd-repo.
The primary reason behind push-url was that
 (1) usually you push to and fetch from the same, so no pushUrl is
     ever needed, just a single Url will do (this is often true for
     cvs/svn style shared repository workflow); and
 (2) sometimes you want to fetch from one place and push to another
     (this is often true for "fetch from upstream, push to my own
     and ask upstream to pull from it" workflow), and in that case
     you want pushUrl in addition to Url.  Most importantly, in this
     case, you do *NOT* want to push to Url.  You only push to
     pushUrl.

Setting *one* pushURL is a way to say "That URL I fetch from is *not* the place I want to push (I may not even be able to push there); when I say 'push', push there instead". Your proposed semantics will make it impossible to arrange such an asymmetric setting.

Junio C Hamano· Jan 15, 2013, 06:39 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> If you allow me, I'd like you to forget about the concepts for a minute, and focus on the user experience.
>> Imagine a simple hypothetical scenario in which the user wants to push to 2 distinct repositories. He already has cloned the repo from the 1st repository, thus (theoretically) all he needs to do, is to add a new repository for push. He then uses `remote set-url --add --push <2nd-repo>` (which I personally thought would suffice). However, if he tries to push a new commit to this remote, it would be pushed _only_ to the 2nd-repo.
>
> The primary reason behind push-url was that
>
>  (1) usually you push to and fetch from the same, so no pushUrl is
>      ever needed, just a single Url will do (this is often true for
>      cvs/svn style shared repository workflow); and
>
>  (2) sometimes you want to fetch from one place and push to another
>      (this is often true for "fetch from upstream, push to my own
>      and ask upstream to pull from it" workflow), and in that case
>      you want pushUrl in addition to Url.  Most importantly, in this
>      case, you do *NOT* want to push to Url.  You only push to
>      pushUrl.
>
> Setting *one* pushURL is a way to say "That URL I fetch from is
> *not* the place I want to push (I may not even be able to push
> there); when I say 'push', push there instead".  Your proposed
> semantics will make it impossible to arrange such an asymmetric
> setting.

Now I think I finally see where that misunderstanding comes from. It is "remote -v" that is misdesigned.

    $ git clone ../there here
    $ cd here
    $ git remote -v
    origin /var/tmp/there (fetch)
    origin /var/tmp/there (push)
This is totally bogus.  It should report something like this:
    $ git remote -v
    origin /var/tmp/there (fetch/push)

Then after running "git remote set-url --push origin ../another" we should see

    $ git remote -v
    origin /var/tmp/there (fetch)
    origin /var/tmp/another (push)

which would make it clear that the original fetch/push came from the (1) usuall you push and fetch from the same place so there is only one setting, and the two lines came from the (2) sometimes you need a separate places to fetch from and push to.

At this point, if you say "set-url --push origin ../third", then "another" will disappear and gets replaced by "third"; if you instead say "set-url --add --push origin ../third", then we will see two (push) lines, in addition to one (fetch), making it clear that you are still in (2) above, fetching from and pushing to different places, and having two places to push to.

I misread your response
    From: Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: [BUG] Possible bug in `remote set-url --add --push`
    Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:09:35 -0200
    Message-ID: <CAN8TAOvP_HX6BEK86aYoX-kVqWDmsbyptxTT2nk+fx+Ut1Tojg@mail.gmail.com>

where you showed that there was only remote.origin.url (and no pushurl) in the first step, and somehow thought you had a remote.origin.pushurl in the first place.

Michael J Gruber· Jan 15, 2013, 09:44 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 15.01.2013 07:39:
Show 51 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
>> Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> If you allow me, I'd like you to forget about the concepts for a minute, and focus on the user experience.
>>> Imagine a simple hypothetical scenario in which the user wants to push to 2 distinct repositories. He already has cloned the repo from the 1st repository, thus (theoretically) all he needs to do, is to add a new repository for push. He then uses `remote set-url --add --push <2nd-repo>` (which I personally thought would suffice). However, if he tries to push a new commit to this remote, it would be pushed _only_ to the 2nd-repo.
>>
>> The primary reason behind push-url was that
>>
>>  (1) usually you push to and fetch from the same, so no pushUrl is
>>      ever needed, just a single Url will do (this is often true for
>>      cvs/svn style shared repository workflow); and
>>
>>  (2) sometimes you want to fetch from one place and push to another
>>      (this is often true for "fetch from upstream, push to my own
>>      and ask upstream to pull from it" workflow), and in that case
>>      you want pushUrl in addition to Url.  Most importantly, in this
>>      case, you do *NOT* want to push to Url.  You only push to
>>      pushUrl.
>>
>> Setting *one* pushURL is a way to say "That URL I fetch from is
>> *not* the place I want to push (I may not even be able to push
>> there); when I say 'push', push there instead".  Your proposed
>> semantics will make it impossible to arrange such an asymmetric
>> setting.
> 
> Now I think I finally see where that misunderstanding comes from.
> It is "remote -v" that is misdesigned.
> 
>     $ git clone ../there here
>     $ cd here
>     $ git remote -v
>     origin /var/tmp/there (fetch)
>     origin /var/tmp/there (push)
> 
> This is totally bogus.  It should report something like this:
> 
>     $ git remote -v
>     origin /var/tmp/there (fetch/push)
> 
> Then after running "git remote set-url --push origin ../another" we
> should see
> 
>     $ git remote -v
>     origin /var/tmp/there (fetch)
>     origin /var/tmp/another (push)
> 
> which would make it clear that the original fetch/push came from the
> (1) usuall you push and fetch from the same place so there is only
> one setting, and the two lines came from the (2) sometimes you need
> a separate places to fetch from and push to.

Yes, that is one big source of misunderstanding. Cleaning up remote -v would help, along with the man page.

Also there is a conceptual confusion: pushurl is meant to push to the same repo using a different url, e.g. something authenticated (https/ssh) for push and something faster/easier for fetch.

It never was meant to push to several repos. That is what "remotes" are for, and it would help if we could push to a remote group (which is difficult because of refspecs etc.) easily.

That being said, I don't mind changing the behaviour of set-url.
Show 18 quoted lines
> At this point, if you say "set-url --push origin ../third", then
> "another" will disappear and gets replaced by "third"; if you
> instead say "set-url --add --push origin ../third", then we will see
> two (push) lines, in addition to one (fetch), making it clear that
> you are still in (2) above, fetching from and pushing to different
> places, and having two places to push to.
> 
> I misread your response
> 
>     From: Jardel Weyrich <jweyrich@gmail.com>
>     Subject: Re: [BUG] Possible bug in `remote set-url --add --push`
>     Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:09:35 -0200
>     Message-ID: <CAN8TAOvP_HX6BEK86aYoX-kVqWDmsbyptxTT2nk+fx+Ut1Tojg@mail.gmail.com>
> 
> where you showed that there was only remote.origin.url (and no
> pushurl) in the first step, and somehow thought you had a
> remote.origin.pushurl in the first place.
>
Junio C Hamano· Jan 15, 2013, 15:53 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

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

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> Also there is a conceptual confusion: pushurl is meant to push to the
> same repo using a different url, e.g. something authenticated
> (https/ssh) for push and something faster/easier for fetch.

That is not necessarily true, depending on the definition of your "same". Having multiple URLs/PushURLs that refer to physically different locations, as long as "git push there" immediately followed by "git fetch here" should work with the repositories that are conceptually equivalent, is a supported mode of operation. In fact, they being physically different _was_ the original motivation of the feature. See 755225d (git builtin "push", 2006-04-29).

The definition of the "immediate" above also depends on your use; it could be tens of minutes (you may be fetching from git.k.org that can be reached from the general public, which may be a cname for multiple machines mirroring a single master.k.org that k.org account holders push to, and there may be propagation delays). In such a scenario, your URL may point at the public git.k.org, pushURL may point at master.k.org, and you may have other pushURLs that point at other places you use as back-up locations (e.g. git.or.cz or github.com).

As long as you _mean_ to maintain their contents the same, you can call them conceptually "the same repo" and your statement becomes true.

> It never was meant to push to several repos.

This is false. It _was_ designed to be used that way from day one. (I am not saying using it in other ways is an abuse---I am merely saying that pushing to multiple physically different repositories is within its scope).

> 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. What needs to be fixed is the output from "remote -v". It should:

 * When there is no pushURL but there is a URL, then show it as
   (fetch/push), and you are done;
 * When there is one or more pushURLs and a URL, then show the URL
   as (fetch), and show pushURLs as (push), and you are done;
 * When there are more than one URLs, and there is no pushURL, then
   show the first URL as (fetch/push), and the remainder in a
   notation that says it is used only for push, but it shouldn't be
   the same "(push)"; the user has to be able to distinguish it from
   the pushURLs in a repository that also has URLs.
 * When there are more than one URLs, and there are one or more
   pushURLs, then show the first URL as (fetch), the other URLs
   as (unused), and the pushURLs as (push).

Strictly speaking, the last one could be a misconfiguration. If you have:

	[remote "origin"]
        	url = one
                url = two
                pushurl = three
                pushurl = four

then your "git fetch" will go to one, and "git push" will go to three and four, and two is never used.

It should also be stressed that the third one a supported configuration. With

	[remote "origin"]
        	url = one
                url = two

your "git fetch" goes to one, and your "git push" will go to one and two. This is the originally intended use case of 755225d. It is to push to and fetch from master.k.org (think of "one" above) and in addition to push to backup.github.com ("two").

Michael J Gruber· Jan 16, 2013, 08:46 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 15.01.2013 16:53:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> Also there is a conceptual confusion: pushurl is meant to push to the
>> same repo using a different url, e.g. something authenticated
>> (https/ssh) for push and something faster/easier for fetch.
> 
> That is not necessarily true, depending on the definition of your
> "same".  Having multiple URLs/PushURLs that refer to physically
> different locations, as long as "git push there" immediately
> followed by "git fetch here" should work with the repositories that
> are conceptually equivalent, is a supported mode of operation. In

That is my definition of "same", in the sense of "object-and-ref-same" when "in-sync" (at least regarding all pushed refs; there may be more there).

> fact, they being physically different _was_ the original motivation
> of the feature. See 755225d (git builtin "push", 2006-04-29).

I thought it was about unauthenticated git-protocol vs. git+ssh but was wrong.

Show 9 quoted lines
> The definition of the "immediate" above also depends on your use; it
> could be tens of minutes (you may be fetching from git.k.org that
> can be reached from the general public, which may be a cname for
> multiple machines mirroring a single master.k.org that k.org account
> holders push to, and there may be propagation delays).  In such a
> scenario, your URL may point at the public git.k.org, pushURL may
> point at master.k.org, and you may have other pushURLs that point at
> other places you use as back-up locations (e.g. git.or.cz or
> github.com).

Yes. That is also why we fetch from one fetch URL only, because we assume they point at the "same" repo and don't need to check.

Show 7 quoted lines
> As long as you _mean_ to maintain their contents the same, you can
> call them conceptually "the same repo" and your statement becomes
> true.
> 
>> It never was meant to push to several repos.
> 
> This is false.  It _was_ designed to be used that way from day one.
It is very true with me definition of "same" ;)
Show 20 quoted lines
> (I am not saying using it in other ways is an abuse---I am merely
> saying that pushing to multiple physically different repositories is
> within its scope).
> 
>> 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.  What
> needs to be fixed is the output from "remote -v".  It should:
> 
>  * When there is no pushURL but there is a URL, then show it as
>    (fetch/push), and you are done;
> 
>  * When there is one or more pushURLs and a URL, then show the URL
>    as (fetch), and show pushURLs as (push), and you are done;
> 
>  * When there are more than one URLs, and there is no pushURL, then
>    show the first URL as (fetch/push), and the remainder in a
>    notation that says it is used only for push, but it shouldn't be
>    the same "(push)"; the user has to be able to distinguish it from
>    the pushURLs in a repository that also has URLs.

Maybe "(fetch fallback/push)" if we do use it as a fallback? If we don't we probably should?

Show 15 quoted lines
>  * When there are more than one URLs, and there are one or more
>    pushURLs, then show the first URL as (fetch), the other URLs
>    as (unused), and the pushURLs as (push).
> 
> Strictly speaking, the last one could be a misconfiguration.  If you
> have:
> 
> 	[remote "origin"]
>         	url = one
>                 url = two
>                 pushurl = three
>                 pushurl = four
> 
> then your "git fetch" will go to one, and "git push" will go to
> three and four, and two is never used.

Do we fall back to two if one is unavailable? In any case, people may use a configuration like that to keep track of mirrors and shuffle around the fetch lines (rather than commenting/uncommenting) when one goes offline.

Show 11 quoted lines
> It should also be stressed that the third one a supported
> configuration.  With
> 
> 	[remote "origin"]
>         	url = one
>                 url = two
> 
> your "git fetch" goes to one, and your "git push" will go to one and
> two.  This is the originally intended use case of 755225d.  It is to
> push to and fetch from master.k.org (think of "one" above) and in
> addition to push to backup.github.com ("two").
Michael
Junio C Hamano· Jan 16, 2013, 15:50 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

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

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 15.01.2013 16:53:
> ...
>>  * When there are more than one URLs, and there is no pushURL, then
>>    show the first URL as (fetch/push), and the remainder in a
>>    notation that says it is used only for push, but it shouldn't be
>>    the same "(push)"; the user has to be able to distinguish it from
>>    the pushURLs in a repository that also has URLs.
>
> Maybe "(fetch fallback/push)" if we do use it as a fallback? If we don't
> we probably should?

I actually think my earlier "it shouldn't be the same (push)" is not needed and probably is actively wrong. Just like you can tell between

    (only one .url)                     (both .url and .pushurl)
    origin there (fetch/push)           origin there (fetch)
                                        origin there (push)

even when the value of the URL/PushURL, i.e. "there", is the same between .url and .pushurl, you should be able to tell between

    (two .url, no .pushurl)             (one .url and one .pushurl)
    origin there (fetch/push)           origin there (fetch)
    origin another (push)               origin another (push)

So let's not make it too complex and forget about the different kind of "(push)".

A case that is a potential misconfiguration would look like:
    (two .url, one .pushurl)
    origin there (fetch)
    origin some  (unused)
    origin another (push)
I think.
Michael J Gruber· Jan 16, 2013, 16:19 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 16.01.2013 16:50:
Show 42 quoted lines
> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 15.01.2013 16:53:
>> ...
>>>  * When there are more than one URLs, and there is no pushURL, then
>>>    show the first URL as (fetch/push), and the remainder in a
>>>    notation that says it is used only for push, but it shouldn't be
>>>    the same "(push)"; the user has to be able to distinguish it from
>>>    the pushURLs in a repository that also has URLs.
>>
>> Maybe "(fetch fallback/push)" if we do use it as a fallback? If we don't
>> we probably should?
> 
> I actually think my earlier "it shouldn't be the same (push)" is not
> needed and probably is actively wrong.  Just like you can tell
> between
> 
>     (only one .url)                     (both .url and .pushurl)
> 
>     origin there (fetch/push)           origin there (fetch)
>                                         origin there (push)
> 
> even when the value of the URL/PushURL, i.e. "there", is the same
> between .url and .pushurl, you should be able to tell between
> 
>     (two .url, no .pushurl)             (one .url and one .pushurl)
> 
>     origin there (fetch/push)           origin there (fetch)
>     origin another (push)               origin another (push)
> 
> So let's not make it too complex and forget about the different kind
> of "(push)".
> 
> A case that is a potential misconfiguration would look like:
> 
>     (two .url, one .pushurl)
> 
>     origin there (fetch)
>     origin some  (unused)
>     origin another (push)
> 
> I think.

I'm sorry but E_NOPARSE. I can't grok the above at all. But I'll try again tomorrow ;)

In any case, the issue with (push)instead of that John mentions bothers me: there are "two specified URLs" but one URL in config only; my patch doesn't make that case clearer at all. My early attempts at amending struct remote produced too many segfaults to continue today...

Michael
Andreas Schwab· Jan 16, 2013, 19:30 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 8 quoted lines
> I actually think my earlier "it shouldn't be the same (push)" is not
> needed and probably is actively wrong.  Just like you can tell
> between
>
>     (only one .url)                     (both .url and .pushurl)
>
>     origin there (fetch/push)           origin there (fetch)
>                                         origin there (push)

What should happen when you have a .pushinsteadof configured that modifies .url for pushing?

Andreas.
-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
Junio C Hamano· Jan 16, 2013, 20:01 UTC · re: Andreas Schwab · lore

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

Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:
Show 13 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> I actually think my earlier "it shouldn't be the same (push)" is not
>> needed and probably is actively wrong.  Just like you can tell
>> between
>>
>>     (only one .url)                     (both .url and .pushurl)
>>
>>     origin there (fetch/push)           origin there (fetch)
>>                                         origin there (push)
>
> What should happen when you have a .pushinsteadof configured that
> modifies .url for pushing?
I think push should work like this:
 * the user gives us a nickname;
 * we look at remote.$nickname.pushurl (and if there isn't,
   remote.$nickname.url) to decide the logical URLs to push to;
 * for each logical URL we decided to push, we look at
   url.*.pushInsteadOf to see if there is one that match the $URL
   (and if there isn't url.*.insteadOf), and map the logical URL to
   the final destination.

So that we can instruct "push" to push, when pushing into a repository that logically resides at git://git.k.org/pub/, to instead push into the repository via git-over-ssh, e.g.

    [remote "korg"]
	url = git://git.k.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
    [url "git.k.org:/pub/"]
        pushInsteadOf = git://git.k.org/pub/
without affecting the fetching side.

As I said in a separate message, the above "fetch/push" vs "fetch" and "push" distinction is not descriptive enough to express the post rewriting that is done with insteadOf; it only helps debugging misconfiguration between .url vs .pushurl, which may be better than the status quo but is not ideal.

Michael J Gruber· Jan 16, 2013, 10:14 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

[PATCH] git-remote: distinguish between default and configured URLs

The current output of "git remote -v" does not distinguish between explicitly configured push URLs and those coming from fetch lines.

Revise the output so so that URLs are distinguished by their labels:

(fetch): fetch config used for fetching only (fetch/push): fetch config used for fetching and pushing (fetch fallback/push): fetch config used for pushing only (fetch fallback): fetch config which is unused (push): push config used for pushing

Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
---
Maybe something like this? It even seems to make the code in get_one_entry
clearer.
I yet have to look at the tests, doc and other git-remote invocations.
 builtin/remote.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c
index 937484d..ec07109 100644
--- a/builtin/remote.c
+++ b/builtin/remote.c
@@ -1509,25 +1509,28 @@ static int get_one_entry(struct remote *remote, void *priv)
 {
 	struct string_list *list = priv;
 	struct strbuf url_buf = STRBUF_INIT;
-	const char **url;
-	int i, url_nr;
+	char *fetchurl0, *fetchurl1;
+	int i;
+
+	if (remote->pushurl_nr > 0) {
+		fetchurl0 = "fetch";
+		fetchurl1 = "fetch fallback";
+	} else {
+		fetchurl0 = "fetch/push";
+		fetchurl1 = "fetch fallback/push";
+	}
 
-	if (remote->url_nr > 0) {
-		strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (fetch)", remote->url[0]);
+	for (i = 0; i < remote->url_nr; i++) {
+		strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (%s)", remote->url[0], i ? fetchurl1 : fetchurl0);
 		string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util =
 				strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL);
-	} else
+	} /* else */
+	if (remote->url_nr == 0)
 		string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util = NULL;
-	if (remote->pushurl_nr) {
-		url = remote->pushurl;
-		url_nr = remote->pushurl_nr;
-	} else {
-		url = remote->url;
-		url_nr = remote->url_nr;
-	}
-	for (i = 0; i < url_nr; i++)
+
+	for (i = 0; i < remote->pushurl_nr; i++)
 	{
-		strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (push)", url[i]);
+		strbuf_addf(&url_buf, "%s (push)", remote->pushurl[i]);
 		string_list_append(list, remote->name)->util =
 				strbuf_detach(&url_buf, NULL);
 	}

-- 
1.8.1.1.456.g93e7b0a
Michael J Gruber· Jan 16, 2013, 10:27 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-remote: distinguish between default and configured URLs

Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 16.01.2013 11:14:
Show 17 quoted lines
> The current output of "git remote -v" does not distinguish between
> explicitly configured push URLs and those coming from fetch lines.
> 
> Revise the output so so that URLs are distinguished by their labels:
> 
> (fetch): fetch config used for fetching only
> (fetch/push): fetch config used for fetching and pushing
> (fetch fallback/push): fetch config used for pushing only
> (fetch fallback): fetch config which is unused
> (push): push config used for pushing
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
> ---
> Maybe something like this? It even seems to make the code in get_one_entry
> clearer.
> 
> I yet have to look at the tests, doc and other git-remote invocations.

Okay, so "git remote show remotename" copied the logic from "git remote -v" but neither reused the code nor the output format. I guess we'd have to implement the new logic and keep the old format? Refactoring would require settling on a common format. Both outputs should be ui-as-ui-can, but I'm afraid people are still grepping the output in their scripts :(

Michael
John Keeping· Jan 16, 2013, 10:42 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-remote: distinguish between default and configured URLs

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:14:48AM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> The current output of "git remote -v" does not distinguish between
> explicitly configured push URLs and those coming from fetch lines.
> 
> Revise the output so so that URLs are distinguished by their labels:
> 
> (fetch): fetch config used for fetching only
> (fetch/push): fetch config used for fetching and pushing
> (fetch fallback/push): fetch config used for pushing only
> (fetch fallback): fetch config which is unused
> (push): push config used for pushing
How does this interact with url.<base>.pushInsteadOf?
I have a global rule to convert git:// URLs to ssh:// for pushing:
    [url "git@example.com:"]
        pushInsteadOf = git://example.com/

With only a URL configured for a remote (no pushURL), I get (with Git 1.8.1):

    origin git://example.com/repository.git (fetch)
    origin git@example.com:repository.git (push)
>From the original discussion in this thread, I think that if I did

"git remote set-url --add --push <url>" it would replace my current push URL, and the change to "(fetch/push)" doesn't help in this case.

Should there be special handling for pushInsteadOf here?
John
Michael J Gruber· Jan 16, 2013, 12:45 UTC · re: John Keeping · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-remote: distinguish between default and configured URLs

John Keeping venit, vidit, dixit 16.01.2013 11:42:
Show 33 quoted lines
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:14:48AM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>> The current output of "git remote -v" does not distinguish between
>> explicitly configured push URLs and those coming from fetch lines.
>>
>> Revise the output so so that URLs are distinguished by their labels:
>>
>> (fetch): fetch config used for fetching only
>> (fetch/push): fetch config used for fetching and pushing
>> (fetch fallback/push): fetch config used for pushing only
>> (fetch fallback): fetch config which is unused
>> (push): push config used for pushing
> 
> How does this interact with url.<base>.pushInsteadOf?
> 
> I have a global rule to convert git:// URLs to ssh:// for pushing:
> 
>     [url "git@example.com:"]
>         pushInsteadOf = git://example.com/
> 
> With only a URL configured for a remote (no pushURL), I get (with Git
> 1.8.1):
> 
>     origin git://example.com/repository.git (fetch)
>     origin git@example.com:repository.git (push)
> 
> From the original discussion in this thread, I think that if I did
> "git remote set-url --add --push <url>" it would replace my current push
> URL, and the change to "(fetch/push)" doesn't help in this case.
> 
> Should there be special handling for pushInsteadOf here?
> 
> 
> John
Thanks for pointing out this case.

The new code would still list this as two separate URLs because they really are; whether they come from two config entries or from one being subject to two different insteadof expansions is completely opaque to builtin/remote.c, unless remote.c learns to stick that additional info into struct remote somehow.

In short, the separate listing is correct, but in this case there's no improvement in readability.

We could still say that (push)InsteadOf is a power feature and we want to help the "normal" case, but it's a bit half-assed. In the end we might even have to keep track of insteadof-expansions and display those also (i.e. "expanded from...")?

Michael
John Keeping· Jan 16, 2013, 13:04 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-remote: distinguish between default and configured URLs

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:45:36PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Show 39 quoted lines
> John Keeping venit, vidit, dixit 16.01.2013 11:42:
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:14:48AM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>>> The current output of "git remote -v" does not distinguish between
>>> explicitly configured push URLs and those coming from fetch lines.
>>>
>>> Revise the output so so that URLs are distinguished by their labels:
>>>
>>> (fetch): fetch config used for fetching only
>>> (fetch/push): fetch config used for fetching and pushing
>>> (fetch fallback/push): fetch config used for pushing only
>>> (fetch fallback): fetch config which is unused
>>> (push): push config used for pushing
>> 
>> How does this interact with url.<base>.pushInsteadOf?
>> 
>> I have a global rule to convert git:// URLs to ssh:// for pushing:
>> 
>>     [url "git@example.com:"]
>>         pushInsteadOf = git://example.com/
>> 
>> With only a URL configured for a remote (no pushURL), I get (with Git
>> 1.8.1):
>> 
>>     origin git://example.com/repository.git (fetch)
>>     origin git@example.com:repository.git (push)
>> 
>> From the original discussion in this thread, I think that if I did
>> "git remote set-url --add --push <url>" it would replace my current push
>> URL, and the change to "(fetch/push)" doesn't help in this case.
>> 
>> Should there be special handling for pushInsteadOf here?
> 
> Thanks for pointing out this case.
> 
> The new code would still list this as two separate URLs because they
> really are; whether they come from two config entries or from one being
> subject to two different insteadof expansions is completely opaque to
> builtin/remote.c, unless remote.c learns to stick that additional info
> into struct remote somehow.

OK. I like the new format, I was just wondering if it was a simple enhancement to indicate a pushInsteadOf URL specially as well.

Show 7 quoted lines
> In short, the separate listing is correct, but in this case there's no
> improvement in readability.
> 
> We could still say that (push)InsteadOf is a power feature and we want
> to help the "normal" case, but it's a bit half-assed. In the end we
> might even have to keep track of insteadof-expansions and display those
> also (i.e. "expanded from...")?

Given that it's not a trivial enhancement, I'd accept the argument that someone who has configured pushInsteadOf can be expected to understand the underlying git-config semantics of "git remote set-url".

John
Junio C Hamano· Jan 16, 2013, 19:19 UTC · re: Michael J Gruber · lore

Re: [PATCH] git-remote: distinguish between default and configured URLs

Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> In short, the separate listing is correct, but in this case there's no
> improvement in readability.

Yes, I think the "insteadOf" rewrite is a related but a separate issue.

Is "remote -v" meant for diagnosing remote.origin.{url,pushurl} that are misconfigured?

If not, the output just should just say the final outcome, i.e. what destinations we will fetch from and push to, without cluttering the output.

If on the other hand it is to help users debug their configuration, the output also needs to explain exactly what made us decide those destinations to use (e.g. to discover there was a leftover insteadof in $HOME/.gitconfig the user forgot about).

Phil Hord· Jan 16, 2013, 16:15 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

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

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
Michael J Gruber· Jan 16, 2013, 16:24 UTC · re: Phil Hord · lore

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

Phil Hord venit, vidit, dixit 16.01.2013 17:15:
Show 10 quoted lines
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 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 said I wouldn't mind, I didn't vote for it.
Show 18 quoted lines
> 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?

For "set url --add --push" on top of a push url only being defaulted from a fetch url, both behaviours (replace or add, i.e. current or new) make sense to me. So the questions are:

- Is it worth and possible changing?
- How to best describe it in "remote -v" and "remote show" output?

My patch answered to "no" to the first question and answers the second one in cases where (push)insteadof is not used to transform one fetch config into two different urls for fetch and push. I think :)

Michael

← back to recent threads