Re: [PATCH] clone: add remote.cloneDefault config option

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 8/26/2020 2:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Sean Barag via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>> This commit implements
>> `remote.cloneDefault` as a parallel to `remote.pushDefault`,
>> with prioritized name resolution:
> 
> I highly doubt that .cloneDefault is a good name.  After reading
> only the title of the patch e-mail, i.e. when the only available
> information on the change available to me was the name of the
> configuration variable and the fact that it pertains to the command
> "git clone", I thought it is to specify a URL, from which "git
> clone" without the URL would clone from that single repository.
> 
> And the name will cause the same misunderstanding to normal users,
> not just to reviewers of your patch, after this change hits a future
> Git release.
> 
> Taking a parallel from init.defaultBranchName, I would probably call
> it clone.defaultUpstreamName if I were writing this feature.

I was thinking "clone.defaultRemoteName" makes it clear we are naming
the remote for the provided <url> in the command. Having

	clone.defaultUpstreamName = upstream

may look a bit confusing, while

	clone.defaultRemoteName = upstream

makes it a bit clearer that we will set

	remote.upstream.url = <url>

>> diff --git a/t/t5606-clone-options.sh b/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
>> index e69427f881..8aac67b385 100755
>> --- a/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
>> +++ b/t/t5606-clone-options.sh
>> @@ -19,6 +19,20 @@ test_expect_success 'clone -o' '
>>  
>>  '
>>  
>> +test_expect_success 'clone respects remote.cloneDefault' '
>> +
>> +	git -c remote.cloneDefault=bar clone parent clone-config &&
>> +	(cd clone-config && git rev-parse --verify refs/remotes/bar/master)
>> +
>> +'
>> +
>> +test_expect_success 'clone chooses correct remote name' '
>> +
>> +	git -c remote.cloneDefault=bar clone -o foo parent clone-o-and-config &&
>> +	(cd clone-o-and-config && git rev-parse --verify refs/remotes/foo/master)
>> +
>> +'
> 
> These two are "showing off my shiny new toy" tests, which are
> needed, but we also need negative tests where the shiny new toy does
> not kick in when it should not.  For example
> 
> 	git -c remote.cloneDefault="bad.../...name" clone parent
> 
> should fail, no?

This is an important suggestion.

Thanks,
-Stolee