From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
To: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git push usage
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:32:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <76718490902210132w2577c093tf8c2a5e7da8bc0e8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <76718490902200116n73e00b62sbe7bb774bcc058c5@mail.gmail.com>
Tap...tap...tap... is this thing on? :-)
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> wrote:
> The man page for git push claims:
>
> --repo=<repository>
> This option is only relevant if no <repository> argument is passed
> in the invocation. In this case, git-push derives the remote name
> from the current branch: If it tracks a remote branch, then that
> remote repository is pushed to. Otherwise, the name "origin" is
> used. For this latter case, this option can be used to override the
> name "origin". In other words, the difference between these two
> commands
>
> git push public #1
> git push --repo=public #2
>
> is that #1 always pushes to "public" whereas #2 pushes to "public"
> only if the current branch does not track a remote branch. This is
> useful if you write an alias or script around git-push.
>
> However, I'm sitting here looking at the code and I don't see how this
> is possible. I've also done some testing. So I think the man page lies
> and that forms (1) and (2) are equivalent as shown.
>
> cmd_push() is:
>
> const char *repo = NULL; /* default repository */
> struct option options[] = {
> ...
> OPT_STRING( 0 , "repo", &repo, "repository", "repository"),
> ...
> }
>
> argc = parse_options(argc, argv, options, push_usage, 0);
>
> if (argc > 0) {
> repo = argv[0];
> set_refspecs(argv + 1, argc - 1);
> }
>
> rc = do_push(repo, flags);
>
> So if the user specifies --repo, then its value is assigned to *repo by
> parse_options. If the user otherwise specifies a repository w/o --repo, that
> will be argv[0] after parse_options, so it will get assigned to *repo. Assuming
> no other arguments, set_refspecs gets called with argc = 0 and returns w/o doing
> anything.
>
> So the only difference I can see is that form #1 allows the user to specify a
> refspec on the command line. Form #2 does not since the first
> non-dashed argument gets assigned to *repo, so:
>
> $ git push --repo src:dst
>
> would assign src:dst to *repo, which would choke.
>
> So, what's the point of the --repo dashed-option then?
>
> j.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-21 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-20 9:16 git push usage Jay Soffian
2009-02-21 9:32 ` Jay Soffian [this message]
2009-02-24 17:40 ` [RFC] add test cases for the --repo option to git push Michael J Gruber
2009-02-25 21:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-26 9:26 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-02-26 17:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-26 17:48 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-02-26 22:11 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-27 10:42 ` Michael J Gruber
2009-02-27 17:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-27 20:48 ` Jay Soffian
2009-02-27 21:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-02-27 21:21 ` Jay Soffian
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=76718490902210132w2577c093tf8c2a5e7da8bc0e8@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jaysoffian@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).