On 12-07-11 05:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> What about a warning displayed if "remote.default" is not set? Something like:
>>
>> This repository does not have an explicitly configured default
>> remote. Selecting "origin" as the default remote repository.
>> To suppress this warning, or if you wish to have a different
>> default remote repository, run "git remote default <name>".
>> In git X.Y, the default remote will be automatically configured
>> as the first remote added to the repository.
>
> When do you plan to issue the above message? Any time we default to
> 'origin' without remote.default?
>
> I do not see a value to it---if the user has been happily using
> 'origin' as the default remote, there is no reason to give such a
> noise. We will keep defaulting to 'origin' even in the version of
> Git with this series in it.
>
> A warning is necessary if we plan to _later_ add the "first remote
> created either by 'git clone' or 'git remote add' is automatically
> set as the value for remote.default configuration" feature, and the
> place to do so is "git clone" and "git remote add" that creates the
> first remote for the repository. If the name of the remote created
> by them is 'origin', then there is no need for warning, but if the
> user called that first remote with a name that is _not_ 'origin',
> later versions of Git will change the behaviour.
>
> I can see a transition plan that goes like this:
I like your plan -- thanks for working it out in such detail!
I'll re-roll the series to work like your plan's Step 0, and I'll post a
separate RFC patch on top of it that initiates the transition, so folks can
discuss it specifically.
> Step 0. With this series but without the "first one becomes default"
>
> $ git init
> $ git remote add upstream git://over.there.xz/git.git/
> hint: You may want to run "git remote default upstream" now so that
> hint: a lazy 'git push' and 'git fetch' defaults to this 'upstream'
> hint: repository, instead of 'origin' (which you do not yet have).
>
> $ git config --global advice.settingDefaultRemote false
> $ git remote rm upstream
> $ git remote add upstream git://over.there.xz/git.git/
> ... nothing, as the user declined the advice ...
>
> Step 1. "First one becomes default" as an opt-in feature
>
> $ git config --global --unset advice.settingDefaultRemote
> $ git init
> $ git remote add upstream git://over.there.xz/git.git/
> hint: You may want to run "git remote default upstream" now so that
> hint: a lazy 'git push' and 'git fetch' defaults to this 'upstream'
> hint: repository, instead of 'origin' (which you do not yet have).
> hint: "git config --global remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault true" can be
> hint: used to make the first remote added to the repository the default
> hint: remote automatically.
> $ git remote default
> origin
>
> $ git config --global remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault true
> $ git remote rm upstream
> $ git remote add upstream git://over.there.xz/git.git/
> ... nothing; user already knows about remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault
> $ git remote default
> upstream
>
> Step 2. Start warning the default change for "First one becomes default"
>
> $ git config --global --unset advice.settingDefaultRemote
> $ git config --global --unset remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault
> $ git init
> $ git remote add upstream git://over.there.xz/git.git/
> hint: You may want to run "git remote default upstream" now so that
> hint: a lazy 'git push' and 'git fetch' defaults to this 'upstream'
> hint: repository, instead of 'origin' (which you do not yet have).
> hint: "git config --global remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault true" can be
> hint: used to make the first remote added to the repository the default
> hint: remote automatically.
> hint:
> hint: In future versions of Git, this will happen automatically.
> hint: If you do not want the first remote to become default, run
> hint: "git config --global remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault false" now.
>
> Step 3. "First one becomes default" is now default
>
> $ git config --global --unset advice.settingDefaultRemote
> $ git config --global --unset remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault
> $ git init
> $ git remote add upstream git://over.there.xz/git.git/
> warning: Made 'upstream' the default remote for this repository.
> $ git remote default
> upstream
>
> $ git remote rm upstream
> $ git config --global remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault true
> $ git init
> $ git remote add upstream git://over.there.xz/git.git/
> ... nothing; the user explicitly told us what to do
> $ git remote default
> upstream
>
> $ git remote rm upstream
> $ git config --global remote.firstRemoteBecomesDefault false
> $ git init
> $ git remote add upstream git://over.there.xz/git.git/
> ... nothing; the user explicitly told us what to do
> $ git remote default
> origin
>
>> Since the "cmd_" prefix is already used for the main commands, perhaps
>> another prefix for subcommands? Maybe "sub_"? Some of the shell-based
>> commands use the main command itself as a prefix (e.g. bisect_start()).
>> Doing that here would mean "remote_default()" etc. Any preference?
>
> No strong preference for file-scope-statics.
>
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (argc < 2)
>>>> + printf_ln("%s", remote_get_default_name());
>>>
>>> Good. If somebody anal cares about the vanilla hardcoded default
>>> 'origin' and 'remote.default' having 'origin' as a configured value,
>>> he should be using "git config" to ask the difference. Users of
>>> "remote default" interface should not have to care.
>>>
>>>> + else {
>>>> + const char *name = argv[1];
>>>> + if (remote_is_configured(name)) {
>>>> + git_config_set("remote.default", name);
>>>> + printf_ln(_("Default remote set to '%s'."), name);
>>>> + } else
>>>> + return error(_("No remote named '%s'."), name);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> I am not sure if this is a good idea. Shouldn't "git remote default
>>> frotz" followed by "git remote add frotz" work?
>>
>> To me it feels wrong to allow the user to set the default remote to something
>> that doesn't actually exist. It's like trying to add a non-existent file.
>
> Every few weeks, I do this:
>
> ln -f -s Documentation/RelNotes/$new_version.txt RelNotes
> edit Documentation/RelNotes/$new_version.txt
>
>> And what if the user forgets the second step?
>
> That is why we warn on an unusual order. A lazy "git push" will
> fail and that would be sufficient clue.
>
> And another reason for the warning (with "you do not yet have") is
> to prevent this:
>
> git remote add frotz git://over.there.xz/git.git
> git remote default frozt
See, to me an error in this case makes more sense. But I feel I'm splitting
hairs now, and I'm happy to go with the warning instead.
>> It seems saner for a command to fail if it knows a change it's about to make
>> will cause problems.
>
> The point is that you do *NOT* know it will cause problems. People
> who want to do things in an unusual order *know* what they are doing
> a lot better than you do. Don't get in their way.
I'll aim to post a revised series next week.
M.
--
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