On 14/01/2013, at 17:09, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.-- 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