Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> When adding a remote, we make sure that the remote does not exist
> already.
>
> For convenience, we allow re-adding remotes with the same URLs.
> This also handles the case that there is an "[url ...] insteadOf"
> setting in the config.
>
> It might seem like a mistake to compare against remote->url[0] without
> verifying that remote->url_nr >=1, but at this point a missing URL has
> been filled by the name already, therefore url_nr cannot be zero.
>
> Noticed by Anastas Dancha.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
> ---
> builtin/remote.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/remote.c b/builtin/remote.c
> index 46ecfd9..9168c83 100644
> --- a/builtin/remote.c
> +++ b/builtin/remote.c
> @@ -180,7 +180,8 @@ static int add(int argc, const char **argv)
> url = argv[1];
>
> remote = remote_get(name);
> - if (remote && (remote->url_nr > 1 || strcmp(name, remote->url[0]) ||
> + if (remote && (remote->url_nr > 1 || (strcmp(name, remote->url[0]) &&
> + strcmp(url, remote->url[0])) ||
> remote->fetch_refspec_nr))
> die(_("remote %s already exists."), name);
When we need to fold an overlong line, it is easier to read if the
line is folded at an operator with higher precedence, i.e. this line
if (A && (B || (C && D) || E))
folded like this
if (A && (B || (C &&
D) ||
E))
is harder to read than when folded like this
if (A && (B ||
(C && D) ||
E))
So, it is an error if we have "remote" and if
(1) URL for the remote is defined already twice or more; or
(2) we are adding a nickname (i.e. not a URL) and it is different
from what we already have; or
(3) we already have fetch_refspec
The way I read the log message's rationale was that this is to allow
replacing an existing remote's URL; wouldn't checking the existence
of fetch_refspec go against that goal?
Puzzled. Either the code is wrong or I am mislead by the
explanation in the log.
--
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