On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 06:33:32 -0700 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I agree but only if the listed ones are separate ones. If the URLs > are separate paths to reach the same remote (e.g. https:// and ssh:// > going to the same place), the current definition would make more > sense. I realize I’m a bit biased towards my personal use case, but I wonder if it would make sense to consider how frequently each case occurs? Case 1: someone wants to keep multiple repos mirrored, by always pushing to all of them (my use case). Case 2: someone wants to push to one repo, but vagaries of Internet connectivity mean that sometimes they can’t use SSH and other times they can’t use HTTP (or they prefer one protocol but sometimes that one doesn’t work), therefore they want both URLs so that when one fails the other may work. I suppose the most common situation in this case is that you want to use SSH so that you don’t have to type a password, but sometimes you’re in a site which only allows HTTP connections and typing a password as a fallback is preferable to failing altogether? For me, case 1 happens quite frequently but case 2 pretty much never—I don’t think I’ve ever been somewhere that blocks port 22 outbound, so I always just use SSH. But I realize other people’s experience varies. -- Christopher Head
