Hi again,
Thanks for accepting the patch.
> It is somewhat unfortunate that we do not say what the name of the
> "origin" is anywhere in the resulting configuration file. The only
> way to tell that "--origin somewhere" was used is to notice that there
> is only one remote and its name is "somewhere".
This reads as self-contradictory to me. The word "origin" is nowhere in
the configuration file, that's true. But that's because the user chose
it to be that way, and the name the user chose is in the there.
The reason I see it as self-contradictory is that I see two different
usages of the word "origin" in your email:
1. A *term* meaning the repository that was cloned (e.g. 'name of the
"origin"', remote.originName)
2. The *name* of a remote ('there is only one remote and its name is
[not "origin"]')
Seems you are aware since you write it in quotes :-)
Both usages appear in the wild and are even mixed sometimes, but in my
experience it's not a big deal; it's usually obvious from context. I
think the second usage is the common one, but the name is so common that
it leads to the first. Is this something we'd like to tackle? If so, it
just occured to me that it certainly doesn't help that the switch to
change the name referring to the repo that was cloned from "origin" to
something else is "--origin".
> I do not think "git fetch" in such a repository knows that it needs to
> fetch from 'somewhere', even whe it is the only remote repository
> available to us.
Changing git fetch to fall back to a remote not named "origin" if that
is the only one configured makes perfect sense to me. (I am skeptical
about remotes.originName since that favors the first usage outlined
above.)
I have cc'ed the origin (pun overtly intended) of this patch and
discussion for their take on it.
> Instead of "usually the thing is called 'origin', so let's make sure
> it does not exist", we may want to say "there is only one remote and
> it is called somewhere because that is how we named it", i.e.
>
> git -C clone-bare config --name-only \ --get-regexp
> "remote\..*\.url" >actual && echo remote.somewhere.url >expect
> && test_cmp actual expect
This seems like like a better test than the one I wrote.
By the way, I noticed you already fixed my mistake with the repo name.
Thanks for that. I sent this as a v2, but as you can imagine I did it in
two steps in real life. First I removed the test then later I wrote a
new one, and in between I rebased my changes. In the mean time new tests
were added. I noticed they failed, but I didn't realize that was my
fault.
Øsse
