[andrewmcwatters]

Thank you for your comments!

I'll thinking about what would be some nice output for --dry-run. Do you have a desired behavior? Maybe something like this?

    Would fetch:
      src/utils.js from https://github.com/user/library.git (a1b2c3d -> f9e8d7c)
      config/webpack.js from https://github.com/company/tools.git (HEAD -> 1a2b3c4)
    
    Would skip (local changes):
      docs/README.md from https://github.com/org/templates.git (use --force to overwrite)
    
    Up to date:
      package.json from https://github.com/user/library.git (f4e5d6c)

Push seems kinda neat for getting changes back to a remote!

I will try to make the README.md a little more clear about what happens after `pull`, because you're right, it's not specified, but files aren't actually committed, just placed in the directory for you to do as you please.

I like your ideas! Thank you!

[g4cg54g54]

for --dry-run that looks pretty good yeps! I like the "--force hint" in there too!

for the "push", I think my idea was mostly about "local-remotes", think "I have both cloned locally, with both IDEs open going back&forth"

one injection there would be `../someupstream/file` vs. `../someupstream/.git/refs/HEAD:file`... aka "pick the file as is" (potentially marked as "${HEAD}-dirty" vs. "only committed things are truth" (and if just so one doesn't need a extra `cp` command ;))

`just placed in the directory for you to do as you please.` could open a "--auto-commit" option -> based on a template similar to the dry run? (ideally overridable in .git-remote-files)

[andrewmcwatters]

Good ideas. You mentioning your locally cloned repo was what spurred this. I wanted to do something a little more robust than just copy and paste the file from the other repository, but I also didn't want to inject the entire project as a dependency for a single file.

It feels like it would be excessive to perform a remote call if we already have the repository locally checked out, so I'll think that one over. I would like to add that!

I will also think more about automatically committing after `pull`, other standard git commands have --no-commit arguments, so this would be a bit different, since we're behaving a bit like `git-fetch`.

Edit: Would you like me to add you to a Contributors section of the README.md? Thanks for your input!

[g4cg54g54]

I´m mostly thinking in a "tell fetch-file that github.com/mine/scripts.git is already cloned to ~/devstuff/scripts/ fashion" - to then "skip the clone and use my provided folder instead of cloning into CACHE_DIR"

what shines combined with a push-subcommand when doing "active development" in the downstream repo - since it can shove the fix you made back into the upstream so you can commit and release it there

("push" may then also have a --with-commit option that 1) makes a commit in the local upstream 2) updates downstreams `.git-remote-files` commit-key)

on --no-commit idk... while i very much like the idea of it being able to auto-commit, default-enabled might be a little overreaching but not 100% certain on this... - maybe your `--commit <commit>` could become `--ref <ref>` instead to free up --(no-)commit? (ref might even be more git-nomenclature correct ;))

readme: no thanks, just on a throwaway anyhow ;)

[andrewmcwatters]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about the commit flag either! I opted to add the feature using a `--commit` flag with no arguments, and the default remaining to not commit, much like `fetch` itself.

Then, I made the automatic commit messages reflect a style that looked like git's standard automatic commit messages, with summaries for larger commits. Though upon reflection, maybe a list of file changes or updates would be more in-line with git's style.

Maybe that's close enough.