> Do you mean you would agree that it is overkill?
It means I don't have much interest in trying to convince you your way. I will try just once, and I have two arguments to make:
1) I added it in the first place because it made the design of patch 2/3 obvious. If the shared configuration variable wins, I would withdraw patch 2/3 completely and just let the user use git-config (or "vi"...) to modify the default.
2) Also, I liked per-remote configuration because it gives you a quick view of which remotes you have just because you sometimes cherrypick from them, and which remotes you have because you are basing your work on them.
If you're convinced, I'll send the updated (final?) patch later today (which means you'll get it tomorrow morning in your timezone). If you're not, I'm not sure I can update the patch today to use the shared configuration variable, but I'll get to that too.
> Also I agree with many points Dscho made. I understand you
> agreed to avoid asprintf() from portability worries, which I
> think is a sensible thing to do.
Sure, I was somehow convinced that git was already providing a portable version of it.
> While I do not think we should avoid sscanf("%n"), I suspect
> that the code in your patch is not helped by using it that much.
No, it's not. But it's helped a lot by using sscanf itself, and "%n" is the only way I know to reliably test the return code of sscanf and, in the process, save one strchr and one strlen.
Paolo
-
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