Hi Bert,
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:50 PM Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bert,
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> >
> > > When renaming a remote with
> > >
> > > git remote rename X Y
> > >
> > > Git already renames any config values from
> > >
> > > branch.<name>.remote = X
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > branch.<name>.remote = Y
> > >
> > > As branch.<name>.pushRemote also names a remote, it now also renames
> > > these config values from
> > >
> > > branch.<name>.pushRemote = X
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > branch.<name>.pushRemote = Y
> >
> > Should we warn if remote.pushDefault = X?
>
> AFAIU, the value of remote.pushDefault wont be renamed yet. So you
> suggest to issue a warning in case remote.pushDefault is X. But as X
> does not exists anymore after the rename, the value of
> remote.pushDefault is invalid. So why not rename it too?
If this setting was usually a repository-specific one, I would suggest to
change its value, too. But it is my understanding that this might be set
in `~/.gitconfig` more often than not, so I recommend a warning instead.
> > > @@ -305,7 +309,7 @@ static int config_read_branches(const char *key, const char *value, void *cb)
> > > space = strchr(value, ' ');
> > > }
> > > string_list_append(&info->merge, xstrdup(value));
> > > - } else {
> > > + } else if (type == REBASE) {
> > > int v = git_parse_maybe_bool(value);
> > > if (v >= 0)
> > > info->rebase = v;
> > > @@ -315,6 +319,10 @@ static int config_read_branches(const char *key, const char *value, void *cb)
> > > info->rebase = REBASE_MERGES;
> > > else if (!strcmp(value, "interactive"))
> > > info->rebase = INTERACTIVE_REBASE;
> > > + } else {
> > > + if (info->push_remote_name)
> > > + warning(_("more than one %s"), orig_key);
> > > + info->push_remote_name = xstrdup(value);
> >
> > It makes me a bit nervous that this is an `else` without an `if (type ==
> > PUSH_REMOTE)`... Maybe do that, just to be on the safe side, even if
> > another type is introduced in the future?
>
> I'm not a friend of this last 'else' either, but it was so to begin
> with. I'm all for changing it to an 'else if'. Though while it is
> impossible that 'type' has a value different than one from the enum, I
> would be even more comfortable with having BUG at the end.
My thinking was: even if this was a bare `else` before, why not fix that
issue while we're already in the area? I like the `BUG` idea.
Ciao,
Dscho
