From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] remote: add new --fetch option for set-url Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:22:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20141124222243.GA9055@peff.net> References: <6997784.RuzRO1AFsK@al> <1628833.9HksdDrMW8@al> <27811375.1kgEM3BV3q@al> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Wu X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 24 23:22:50 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xt21x-0008AP-Qb for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:22:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751042AbaKXWWq (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:22:46 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:44391 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750860AbaKXWWp (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:22:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 13218 invoked by uid 102); 24 Nov 2014 22:22:45 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:22:45 -0600 Received: (qmail 22764 invoked by uid 107); 24 Nov 2014 22:22:43 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:22:43 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:22:44 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27811375.1kgEM3BV3q@al> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:16:03PM +0100, Peter Wu wrote: > > A new option "--fetch" introducing a different behaviour is > > perfectly fine; existing users who are not using it will not be > > harmed by sudden behaviour change. > > As stated before, I took care to avoid backwards incompatibilities. The > command will still work as expected by the users who are aware of this > particular behavior. Right. My original complaint was only that "--fetch" is not as orthogonal to "--push" (and an optionless set-url) as it could be. I think the alternatives for going forward are basically: 1. Name it something besides --fetch (but that's rather clunky). 2. Migrate to new behavior, which is what is being discussed here. Probably needs a transition period? 3. Live with it. Probably address the weirdness in the documentation. 4. Do nothing, drop the patch. I think I'd be OK with (3), with an appropriate documentation update. -Peff