Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> + if (explicit) >> + *s = xstrdup(merge); >> + else >> + *s = ""; > > Here is the same "who are we trying to help---users who want to know > where their push goes, or users who are debugging where the push > destination is defined?" question. I do not have a strong opinion > either way, but I think giving the end result with fallback (i.e. > not nullifying when the result is not explicit) may be easier to use > by "push" users. Now after thinking about it a bit more, I actually have a moderate preference to doing it the way your patches do. With programatic %(if)%(else)%(end) support we acquired recently, the fallback can be coded in the --format=... language if the user wanted to using the "internal fallbacks, explicit==0, are ignored" behaviour that are implemented by these two patches. The reverse is not true. I think the remaining points from my reviews are: - It would be better to compute precomputable stuff when used atoms are parsed, instead of running starts_with() in these functions; - We want to make sure there is no existing multi-word modifiers (in which case we can safely declare "multi-word" is the way we spell them from now on). Or if there are existing ones, they already spell themselves as "multi-word". I have nothing against "remote-name"; I just want to make sure we are not making things inconsistent. If there are only few (but non zero number of) multi-word modifiers that are not spelled "multi-word", as long as they are only few and their spelling are inferiour (e.g. concatenatedwords is much worse than concatenated-words), we could still declare "multi-word" is the right way to spell them going forward, declare that we will give them synonyms and deprecate the bad spelling out over time, and leave that plan as #leftover bits thing (i.e. not doing the deprecation of these other modifiers as part of this series. The only thing I want to happen in the scope of _this_ series, as due diligence, is to make sure we are happy with "multi-word", and also to know if we need a follow-up work (just yes/no, possibly with plans, but no actual work yet). Thanks.
