Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] make "git push" update origin and mirrors, "git push --mirror" update mirrors

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:23:22 -0700

"Shawn O. Pearce" <[email-masked]> writes:

> I _hate_ the default remote.  One of the first things I wind up
> doing is deleting it and creating a new one.  At least git-clone has
> the -o flag to setup your own name, which then the tools (git-fetch
> and git-push) cannot find.
>
> Anytime I use git-fetch, git-pull or git-push I am always giving
> it a remote name, or a remote name and a refspec.  So having these
> tools default to 'origin' is of little to no value to me.

It sounds as if you want to say it a bit stronger than that --- to you,
defaulting to 'origin' is not of "little to no" but "negative" value, is
it?

But I think we are minotiry.  To people with "CVS migrant" workflow,
cloning from _the_ central repo, hacking, and then pushing back will never
involve anything other than 'origin' and local repositories, and I am
sympathetic when they want to say "git push" and have it default to that
single other repository.

If you have more than one places to push, like we do, we have these
multiple repositories exactly because we would want to push to these
repositories for different reasons, and being able to name to which one we
would want to push in each invocation of push is a power.  But not all
people need to use that power.  If somebody pushes only to one place,
which may be very typical, that's fine, and in such a typical "single
remote" configuration, they will be pushing back to where they cloned
from.