On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 09:48:58AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 03:05:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > For "remotes" I might disagree however, it can make sense to keep them as > > one might want to be able to push/pull from the remote repository used for > > the maintenance. Of course, usage of "git clone" makes it more difficult > > to preserve those... > > I, for one, don't limit myself to having one remote, nor always have the > same name for the remote where the public repository is. The git format > should standardize/enforce this and drop any remote that is not the > public repo for maintenance, and name the remaining remote "origin".
Moreover, most people that will be interested in using these remotes would like to pull, but the few people that actually build the git.tar.gz are using remotes where they also push, which means they are probably using an ssh:// url for the remote, which others won't have access to, and the remote will be useless to them. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
