When creating a repo no upstream is set up.

[Bubu]

When I run git lab create group/repo the repository is successfully created online but locally I still have no remotes set up.

I started from a newly created repo without any remotes.

[guyzmo]

from the help:

[…]
    git-repo [--path=<path>] [-v...] <target> create [--add]
    git-repo [--path=<path>] [-v...] <target> create <user>/<repo> [--add]
[…]
Options for create:
    --add                    Add to local repository after creation
[…]

i.e.: if you do:

git lab create --add group/repo

it will be added to the current repository, if you're in one.

I decided to default to not change the local directory per default, because you're not necessarily creating a repository when you're in a directory you've already git inited. And removing a remote is not hard, but because names are autogenerated it's not always obvious (--add will create two remotes, gitlab and all).

But, if you forgot to add, it's really not a big deal, you just do one more command:

git lab add group/repo gitlab

cf the -h for add:

    git-repo [--path=<path>] [-v...] <target> add <user>/<repo> [<name>] [--tracking=<branch>] [-a]
[…]
Options for add:
    <name>                   Name to use for the remote (defaults to name of repo)
    -t,--tracking=<branch>   Makes this remote tracking for the current branch
    -a,--alone               Does not add the remote to the 'all' remote

I'm planning to split the huge --help screen into different --help for each subcommand, but at the time being, having them all in one place makes it easier to mold the CLI API.

Any thoughts?

[Bubu]

I must have missed that in the help output.

But I just tried again with --add and also the add subcommand. The result is always the following error:
Fatal error: 'GitlabService' object has no attribute 'gl' I'll rename the issue accordingly.

Re: default action: Can you explain what the use case/workflow for not adding a newly created repo as a remote is?

Edit: Github seems to work.

[guyzmo]

oh, sorry, it's already being taken care of, cf #97 and #98. I'm working on releasing 1.8.1 ASAP! 😖

[guyzmo]

Re: default action: Can you explain what the use case/workflow for not adding a newly created repo as a remote is?

Because when you do git X create foo/bar you're might be doing it in advance for a future code you're about to push, and you don't want to mess up another repository you might be in. And then you'd end up having repositories of two projects mixed together in a single .git/config, not nice.

As I considered that if you actually aimed to add the default upstream in current repository but forgot to do so, running git lab add group/repo gitlab wouldn't be too much of a hassle, I thought it would be a sane default to not mutate current repository when doing create.

[Bubu]

oh, sorry, it's already being taken care of, cf #97 and #98. I'm working on releasing 1.8.1 ASAP! 😖

I see, thanks!

I thought it would be a sane default to not mutate current repository when doing create.

I understand your reasoning now. Would you consider changing the default behaviour when inside a local repo without remotes?

[guyzmo]

I thought it would be a sane default to not mutate current repository when doing create.

I understand your reasoning now. Would you consider changing the default behaviour when inside a local repo without remotes?

yup, the only tough thing would be to correctly explain it off in the documentation. Though, it might become easier to explain when I'll refactor the CLI part of git-repo (where you'll have git X create --help that will have an independant help page from git-repo --help)

[metasean]

I'm running git-repo version 1.9.0. When I run add (e.g. git lab add group/project) the remote is successfully added. Unfortunately, there is still no upstream set.