Jardel Weyrich <[email protected]> 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
