Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Samuel Tardieu wrote: > >> On 9/03, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> | Samuel Tardieu <sam@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> | >> | > It looks like remote repositories are ordered alphabetically by their >> | > local names when doing a "git remote update". >> | >> | I think the reimplementaiton in 'next' that will hopefully be in 1.5.5 >> | will keep the list of remotes in the order read from the config. >> >> Indeed it does, thanks. > > Well, technically this is a regression. > > If you really want to order your remotes, why not add something like > > [remotes] > default = my-first-remote my-second-remote [...] > > to the config? That is what the (recently fixed in builtin-remote) remote > groups are for... We never guaranteed there is any order the remotes are processed. One order is as good as another, and the only way that can give some guarantee is with the remote groups. So there is no regression and the suggestion to use remote group is one good way. We _might_ want to start guaranteeing some orders by documenting, but I do not think it is necessary. Does "git config" and "git remote" code even guarantee the order the newly added ones are stored in the $GIT_DIR/config file, and is it by design and specified in the documentation, or it is by accident and happens to be the way the code is written? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
