Re: [PATCH 4/6] remote.c: introduce a way to have different remotes for fetch/push

[Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>       if (name)
>>               name_given = 1;
>>       else {
>> -             name = default_remote_name;
>> -             name_given = explicit_default_remote_name;
>> +             if (pushremote_name) {
>> +                     name = pushremote_name;
>> +                     name_given = 1;
>> +             } else {
>> +                     name = default_remote_name;
>> +                     name_given = explicit_default_remote_name;
>> +             }
>>       }
>
> The code to read branch.$name.remote configuration flips
> explicit_default_remote_name to one when it is used to set the
> default_remote_name, and that controls the value of name_given in
> this codepath.  At this point in the series, you do not have a
> corresponding branch.$name.pushremote, but your [6/6] does not seem
> to do the same.
>
> Why isn't it necessary to add explicit_default_pushremote_name and
> do the same here in patch [6/6]?

Sorry, I'm still trying to understand your comment.  Okay, yes:
branch.$name.remote does flip explicit_default_remote_name, because we
need to know if the default remote name was explicitly given.  Wait,
how is explicit_default_remote_name used to set default_remote_name?
Don't you mean name_given?  It controls name_give, yes.  At this point
I don't have .pushremote, yes: I'm setting up for [5/6] and [6/6].  My
[6/6] doesn't seem to do the "same"?  The same thing as .remote?  Are
you asking why .pushremote doesn't flip explicit_default_remote_name
like .remote does?  Because .pushremote can only ever be specified
explicitly: otherwise, it falls back to the .remote logic.

Okay, next paragraph.  Why isn't it necessary to add
explicit_default_pushremote_name?  Like I said, .pushremote can only
ever be specified explicitly.  There is no implicit fallback (like
"origin"): it just falls back to the .remote codepath, if not
explicitly specified.  In other words, it's just a small override on
the .remote codepath.