Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 26.02.2009 18:09: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> First of all: I define good/bad as matching the documentation. > > Ok, I was primarily working from this: > > commit bcc785f611dc6084be75999a3b6bafcc950e21d6 > Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Oct 30 08:28:59 2006 -0800 > > git push: add verbose flag and allow overriding of default target repository > > This adds a command line flag "-v" to enable a more verbose mode, and > "--repo=" to override the default target repository for "git push" (which > otherwise always defaults to "origin"). > > This, together with the patch to allow dashes in config variable names, > allows me to do > > [alias] > push-all = push -v --repo=all > > in my user-global config file, and then I can (for any project I maintain) > add to the project-local config file > > [remote "all"] > url=one.target.repo:/directory > url=another.target:/pub/somewhere/else > > and now "git push-all" just updates all the target repositories, and shows > me what it does - regardless of which repo I am in. > > Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> > > If documentation does not match it, we need to figure out why J6t with > bf07cc5 (git-push.txt: Describe --repo option in more detail, 2008-10-07) > needed to update the documentation. > > It could be that the behaviour changed (perhaps by accident, perhaps by > design) after Linus introduced --repo with bcc785f (git push: add verbose > flag and allow overriding of default target repository, 2006-10-30) and > J6t documented that updated behaviour. And since then there was another > behaviour change (again, perhaps by accident, perhaps by design) that made > you notice the description does not match the behaviour. > > You will see that: > > (1) bf07cc5 (i.e. J6t's documentation) passes your tests; > > (2) somewhere between that and v1.6.2-rc2, there is a regression to make > your test fail. I see. Back then I checked whether there was a change to git-push at or after J6t's doc commit, and there was none, but I didn't test. I'll do now. > if the above conjecture is true, and we may want to fix that regression to > match the documentation. > > On the other hand, if bf07cc5 does not pass your tests, it means that the > documentation update was the cause of the confusion, and it is not the > behaviour that needs to be fixed. >From Linus' description it's not clear to me what should happen when there is no explicit repo argument but the branch is tracking a remote and there is a --repo option. And I think this case is the only open question: Should the option win or the tracking config? Code does option, doc says tracking config. [Also, I don't see immediately what's wrong with "alias.push-all = push -v all", in the current situation where option and arg are equivalent, but I haven't tried.] I'm cc'ing Linus to make sure J6t's (current) doc describes the original intent for --repo and my patch isn't stepping on /some/one's toes... > Sorry, but I do not have time today to look into this. Could you help? Of course. I ursurpated someone else's itch here, but now it's mine ;) I'll bisect. Seems to be the right thing to do while watching soccer later in the evening... Michael -- 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
