Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > For core the only test failing was xfuncname vs funcname, Being a little pessimistic: there may be other cases where the hashtable magically gives the right order for existing tests, but that would fail for untested use-cases. But I can't think of any such case. > so the situation is not as bad as you think. One course of action > would be leave git_config() as it is, so that third party apps > may not be broken. Provide a function like git_config_cache(), > then rename all the git_config() calls in core to git_config_cache(), > fallback to git_config() where it is not applicable (for example, > git config -l). I think Junio's point about "git config -l" is correct: we should just keep git_config_raw there. OTOH, renaming git_config to git_config_cache seems a lot of code churn, so I'd keep the name git_config. Perhaps git_config_raw is no longer a good name and it could be called git_config_ordered. If we keep one call to git_config_raw there, then maybe we can use it for xfuncname/funcname too, and keep the behavior unchanged. > Also can you name any third party apps that use the git_config() > system on which I can test the patches. There are probably tons of. I can think of git-multimail. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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