Hello friends, I got a little time to experiment with moving repo aliases into definitions, motivated by the apparent confusion they cause. The idea is to define them in the DEFAULTS file instead of having them baked into morph/ybd. They would look something like, # Repo aliases repo-aliases: upstream: pull: git://%(trovehost)s/delta/%(repo)s push: git://%(trovehost)s/delta/%(repo)s baserock: pull: git://%(trovehost)s/baserock/baserock/%(repo)s push: ssh://%(trovehost)s/baserock/baserock/%(repo)s freedesktop: pull: git://anongit.freedesktop.org/%(repo)s push: ssh://git.freedesktop.org/%(repo)s gnome: pull: git://git.gnome.org/%(repo)s push: ssh://git.gnome.org/git/%(repo)s github: pull: git://github.com/%(repo)s push: ssh://git@github.com/%(repo)s bitbucket: pull: https://bitbucket.org/%(repo)s push: ssh://git@bitbucket.org/%(repo)s As well as making these aliases more accessible, defining them this way also simplifies the RepoAliasResolver, it might even be as simple as the class pasted below, which is quite a bit simpler than what we have currently. I haven't executed this at all so it's just an idea at this point and so may well be wrong. class RepoAliasResolver(object): def __init__(self, trovehost, aliases): self.trovehost = trovehost self.aliases = aliases def expand_url(self, url, urltype): alias, rest = self._split_url(url) if alias is None: return url return self.aliases[alias][urltype] % {'trovehost': self.trovehost, 'repo': rest} def push_url(self, url): return self.expand_url(url, 'push') def pull_url(self, url): return self.expand_url(url, 'pull') def _split_url(self, url): '''Split url into prefix and suffix at :. The prefix is returned as None if there was no prefix. ''' pat = r'^(?P<prefix>[a-z][a-z0-9-]+):(?P<rest>.*)$' m = re.match(pat, url) if m: return m.group('prefix'), m.group('rest') else: return None, url The slightly annoying part here is having to maintain backwards compatibility with version 6 and 7, so I want to ask 2 questions. Firstly I want to know whether people think this is even worth doing, if people don't think this is worthwhile then I can possibly save myself a lot of time. :) Secondly I want to know whether people think it would be acceptable to drop support for version 6 and 7 and ask folks to migrate to 8. I think it *might* be okay to do this (because we don't have a lot of users right now) but I am not certain, dropping the backwards compatibility here allows me to remove code instead of adding it, but as we know LOC isn't everything. If there's no response to this RFC then I'll assume people think this is a bad idea and drop it! Thanks again, Richard Ipsum