Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 16.01.2013 16:50: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- 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