On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:11:52PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I prepared this on top of what you have queued in jk/config-include. > > However, all of the cleanup is semantically independent of the topic > > (though there are a few minor textual conflicts). If I were re-rolling, > > I would put it all at the front, then squash patch 8 into my prior > > "implement config includes" patch. > > Sorry for being late in answering the "revert or build on top" question; I > was mostly offline yesterday afternoon. No problem. I did it as build-on-top because it's much easier to squash and reorder the commits later than it is to pick a re-roll apart into multiple commits. Which way did you want me to go with it? > Looking at the rebased result, it strikes me that with_options version > > Furthermore, by providing a more "advanced" interface, we > now have a a natural place to add new options for callers > like git-config, which care about tweaking the specifics of > config lookup, without disturbing the large number of > "simple" users (i.e., every other part of git). > > perhaps wants to get a pointer to struct config_lookup_options, instead of > us having to add a new parameter to all callsites every time a new need > is discovered. I considered that, but I noticed that the only callers who are really going to care about the _with_options version will be in builtin/config.c, and they all care about every option. And dealing with creating a struct for each call seemed like more hassle. OTOH, I could probably just make a single static global config_lookup_options, and have all of the option parsing tweak it directly (i.e., replace the given_config_file and respect_includes static globals). -Peff -- 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