Hello, Johannes! On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 03:05 +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > The ["blablabla"] syntax fails the is-it-obvious-what-this-does test. What > *is* wrong with the " for " syntax? IIRC it was even proposed by you, and > it happens to be backward compatible. Not trying to answer for Linus, here's my take. The "for" syntax is one more layer in the config hierarchy. Adding another layer is a more intrusive solution than relaxing the syntax of the existing elements without changing their semantic. git-repo-config is "for" agnostic. It doesn't parse "for" (as far as I know). "for" can be confusing in some contexts, or may force inversion of the hierarchy to make the config file more readable. How would you implement branch descriptions? See this: [branchdata] description = "netdev" for "Network device development" and this [branchdata] description = "Network device development" for "netdev" The later is closer to English. Or should we use the first approach and "is" instead of "for"? Now, how can I get a description for the "netdev" branch by one git-repo-config command, without pipes? -- Regards, Pavel Roskin - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html