"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I _hate_ the default remote. One of the first things I wind up > doing is deleting it and creating a new one. At least git-clone has > the -o flag to setup your own name, which then the tools (git-fetch > and git-push) cannot find. > > Anytime I use git-fetch, git-pull or git-push I am always giving > it a remote name, or a remote name and a refspec. So having these > tools default to 'origin' is of little to no value to me. It sounds as if you want to say it a bit stronger than that --- to you, defaulting to 'origin' is not of "little to no" but "negative" value, is it? But I think we are minotiry. To people with "CVS migrant" workflow, cloning from _the_ central repo, hacking, and then pushing back will never involve anything other than 'origin' and local repositories, and I am sympathetic when they want to say "git push" and have it default to that single other repository. If you have more than one places to push, like we do, we have these multiple repositories exactly because we would want to push to these repositories for different reasons, and being able to name to which one we would want to push in each invocation of push is a power. But not all people need to use that power. If somebody pushes only to one place, which may be very typical, that's fine, and in such a typical "single remote" configuration, they will be pushing back to where they cloned from. -- 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
