Le Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:21:45 +0100 (BST),
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> a écrit :
> Hi,
Hi
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Gabriel wrote:
>
> > + else {
> > + printf ("Added remote repository `%s' without
> > fetching it.\n"
> > + "Before accessing the branches of this "
> > + "remote, run `git fetch %s' "
> > + "or `git remote update'.\n", name, name);
>
> Is this really, really necessary? I was quite happy when a few
> people made Git less chatty, recently.
Not necessary, but a real usability improvement.
I think the transcript that started the thread makes it clear that
having "git remote add" not fetching is not the right default.
The user wants to use a remote repository, and has learned these are
called "remotes". So he does not have too much trouble
finding/remembering the command "git remote add <name> <url>". Now with
the user's goal in mind, it makes no sense to add a remote and then not
fetch it, because the user definitely wants to do something with the
remote. By not fetching it, we are surprising the user (this is
apparent in the transcript), maybe we are making him go through some
documentation, and he will have to go through a mental
checklist "did I add the remote? yes. did I fetch it? yes" later on.
The best solution is a patch that makes --fetch default to yes for git
remote add and discuss that.
In case the remote wasn't fetched, adding some documentation at a place
where it _will_ be needed does no harm. This is not an operation as
frequent as git status or git checkout, so the three lines it takes in
a terminal aren't expensive. A more experienced user that usually runs
"git remote add -f", will not see it either.
--
Gabriel
--
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
