On 4/6/2011 8:44 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Alejandro R. SedeÃo venit, vidit, dixit 05.04.2011 22:15: >> > Similar to the 'remote.<name>.pushurl' config key for git remotes, the >> > 'pushurl' key is treated the same as the 'url' key. This is distinct >> > from the 'commiturl' key, which is defined to be a full svn path. >> > >> > This is necessary if you want to be able to commit to multiple branches. > Maybe one can understand this remark after reading the whole thread, but > reading it as a commit message I'm wondering: Huh? How can I have been > doing it then without pushurl? > > Also, "treated the same as the url" makes a reader wonder why we have > two names for the same. > > The point of pushurl is that you can use a passwordless transport for > fetches and another transport for pushes. The standing assumption is > that both urls point in fact at the same repo. Weird things can happen > if not. Is that assumption the same for your svn pushurl? Yes, that is the idea. I will rephrase the commit message and documentation to be clearer when I send the next version of this patch. When I say, "treated the same as the url," what I mean to say is that any manipulations that would be done to 'url' are also done to 'pushurl', such as appending '/trunk' or '/branches/<branch-name>/' if necessary, which does not happen with commiturl since it is a full snv path. -Alejandro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html