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:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> --- a/builtin/push.c
>>> +++ b/builtin/push.c
>>> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ static int push_with_options(struct transport *transport, int flags)
>>>  static int do_push(const char *repo, int flags)
>>>  {
>>>      int i, errs;
>>> -    struct remote *remote = remote_get(repo);
>>> +    struct remote *remote = pushremote_get(repo);
>>
>> "struct remote" has url and pushurl fields.  What do they mean in the
>> context of these two accessors?  /me is confused.
>>
>> Is the idea that now I should not use pushurl any more, and that I
>> should use pushremote_get and use url instead?
>
> I thought the basic idea from the user-level is:
>
>  - If you have to use different URL to push to and fetch from the
>    logically same location (e.g. git://k.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
>    used for fetch, k.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git/ used for push), use
>    url for fetch, pushurl for push and you don't have to bother with
>    per-branch pushremote at all.  You are logically working with the
>    same remote, perhaps called 'origin'.
>
>  - If you push to and fetch from logically different repositories,
>    (e.g. fetch from https://github.com/gitster/git, push to
>    github.com:artagnon/git), you may want to call your upstream
>    'origin' and your publishing repository 'mine'.  You set the
>    remote.pushdefault to 'mine', perhaps like:
>
>         [remote "mine"]
>                 url = github.com:artagnon/git
>
>    (this can also be written with remote.mine.pushurl).
>
> By splitting remote_get() used for fetch and pushremote_get() used
> for push, the latter function can return 'origin' and 'mine' for
> these two cases, while remote_get() will return 'origin' for both of
> these cases.  At the programming level, you would still ask what the
> URL to be pushed to to the remote obtained here, and would use
> pushurl if defined, or url otherwise.
>
> Ram, am I following your thoughts correctly?

Exactly.  I couldn't have said it better myself.