Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> The +1 fetch is redundant, so it's probably good to get rid of it
>> anyway.
Another thing I noticed is that this +1 is *not* limited to "--all".
If you give a group that expands to multiple remotes, you'd take the
same fetch_multiple() code path (that is why the "single liner"
patch in the message I am responding to looks at the "is remote
set?", which is the same condition that decides if we use
fetch_one() or fetch_multiple()).
I also notice that there is a strange "optimzation" that is used
after expanding a group into one or more remotes and when it turns
out it was a group of one. In such a case (and only in such a
case), we set "remote" and bypass the code path that uses &list.
I wonder if this "optimization" should be also used for "--all".
builtin/fetch.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git c/builtin/fetch.c w/builtin/fetch.c
index e3791f09ed..9093455e81 100644
--- c/builtin/fetch.c
+++ w/builtin/fetch.c
@@ -2187,6 +2187,9 @@ int cmd_fetch(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
else if (argc > 1)
die(_("fetch --all does not make sense with refspecs"));
(void) for_each_remote(get_one_remote_for_fetch, &list);
+ /* no point doing fetch_multiple() of one */
+ if (list.nr == 1)
+ remote = remote_get(list.items[0].string);
} else if (argc == 0) {
/* No arguments -- use default remote */
remote = remote_get(NULL);
