From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DED1F462 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:33:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728282AbfG2Ndk (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:33:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:53282 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727531AbfG2Ndk (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:33:40 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED56582DB0; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:33:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=CHhLqKMtUFMbJ0Mh/dM+yDp7nYw=; b=cHeo8j wwVVd7jRVVq6ULcbI8OXDA0yVPqfYosk6j5TZvqtFnFli6D7TLOVqebffILekbli P8MNcCfeBBc0e8f0CGiwNtkfrJlr0fMyp/sP16oAnVHWQFv34gXFpcfM2WAe+QqM 02un9VRTlDGIPRc+EBQeM4UXlsKSQpNJlZ+Pg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qde4AM2TJcZ0JThYCxXSfCnVkgcReX+I 7lwiGS6KsJgdzcqCm8n43BY2vqYhxYGOQ5EvmS1cjkqPH+XGUuU1h39QPUZaQLfL QxTvEyqXxP2bgNLuXn0yu2l/OjqsOVVWLkRvjcSshMbN7S3voKrL9o0tGv1CNjKS Vvv0KBmwaf4= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D2382DAF; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:33:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0203182DAD; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:33:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Christopher Head , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Push force-with-lease with multi-URL remote References: <20190727095440.1aac3b3c@amdahl.home.chead.ca> <20190729102009.GC2755@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 06:33:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190729102009.GC2755@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon, 29 Jul 2019 06:20:10 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 76DC272E-B205-11E9-AAA3-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > My general feeling is that having multiple push URLs for a remote is a > poorly designed feature in Git (and I think the discussion elsewhere in > this thread went there, as well). That's being generous. I do not think it was even designed---at least, the interaction with remote-tracking is ill thought out, but I think the updating of remote-tracking by pretending to have turned around and fetched immediately after it has done its thing came much later than multiple URLs for push. A remote with multiple URLs without any remote-tracking (i.e. "push only remote") behaves semi-sensibly. > But since we do have it, and if we are not going to deprecate it[1], it > seems like this case should pick the X value of myremote/mybranch ahead > of time, and then use it consistently for each push. I agree but only if the listed ones are separate ones. If the URLs are separate paths to reach the same remote (e.g. https:// and ssh:// going to the same place), the current definition would make more sense.