Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This is not ready for inclusion in anything. Commiting for RFC on
> whether this way of doing it is sane in theory.
I think this is a good idea at least in theory.
> Known bugs:
>
> * Breaks the model of being able to *set* config values. That
> doesn't work for the included files. Maybe not a bug.
Errr... do I understand correctly that it simply means that you are
not able to set config values that came from included files, in
included files?
This is quite serious limitation.
>
> * Errors in the git_config_from_file() call in glob_include_config()
> aren't passed upwards.
Hmmm...
>
> * It relies on the GNU GLOB_TILDE extension with no
> alternative. That can be done by calling getenv("HOME") and
> s/~/$home/.
"git config --path <variable>" expands leading '~' to $HOME, and ~user
to home directory of given user. Why not use this?
>
> * The whole bit with saving/restoring global state for config
> inclusion is evil, but then again so is the global state.
Why not encapsulate those global variables in a struct, passed to
appropriate functions, with a global variable holding an instance of
such struct (IIRC similarly to what is done for "the_index").
>
> * We don't check for recursion. But Git gives up eventually after
> after spewing a *lot* of duplicate entry errors. Not sure how to
> do this sanely w/symlinks.
The alternates mechanism has some depth limit; why not use it also for
config file inclusion? The machanism is quite similar...
>
> Not-signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>
You can simply do not add Signed-off-by for an RFC patch...
> ---
>
> > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 07:50, Eli Barzilay <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Isn't it better to have a way to include files instead?
> >
> > Probably yes. Programs like Apache HTTPD, rsyslog and others just use
> > ${foo}conf.d by convention by supporting config inclusion.
>
> Here's an evil implementation of this. I know the code is horrid &
> buggy (see above). But is the general idea sane. I thought it would be
> better to submit this for comments before I went further with it.
>
> config.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> t/t1300-repo-config.sh | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
No documentation.
[...]
> diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> index f11f98c..4df6658 100755
> --- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> +++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> @@ -824,4 +824,47 @@ test_expect_success 'check split_cmdline return' "
> test_must_fail git merge master
> "
>
> +cat > .git/config << EOF
> +[some]
> + variable = blah
> +[voodoo]
> + include = .git/more_config_*
> +EOF
I don't like this syntax.
First, it forces git-config to hide all 'include' keys. I think there
might be some legitimate <section>.include config variables (perhaps
outside git-core); with this patch they are impossible.
Second, I guess that the section name has absolutely no meaning here.
If included config file has section.key config variable, i.e.:
[section]
key = value
the variable in master config file (visible by git-config) would not
be voodoo.section.key.
Third, what happens with the sections in master config file? If I
have the following in .git/config
[voodoo]
var1 = val1
include = .git/more_config
var2 = val2
and the .git/more_config has
[foo]
bar = baz
would "git config --list" see 'voodoo.var2' (i.e. sections in included
file does not change parsing of master file), or would it see
'foo.var2'?
I would propose
include .git/more_config_*
if not for the fast that it would trip older git. Perhaps
[include ".git/more_config_*"]
or
[include .git/more_config_*]
or
## include ".git/more_config_*"
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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