Hi Junio, On Wed, 1 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > >> That leaves the "putty" case in handle_ssh_variant(), does it not? Was it > >> not your specific objection that that is the case? > > > > Yup, you can remove that while you reroll. > > > >> No worries, I will let this simmer for a while. Your fixup has a lot of > >> duplicated code (so much for maintainability as an important goal... ;-)) > >> and I will have to think about it. My immediate thinking is to *not* > >> duplicate code,... > > > > You need to realize that the namespaces of the configuration and the > > command names are distinct. There is no code duplication. > > To explain this a bit, there is no reason why allowed values for > SSH_VARIANT must be "putty" and "tortoiseplink". An alternative > design could be "port_option=-p,needs_batch=yes" and it may be more > logical and futureproof if a variant of tortoiseplink decides to use > "-p" instead of "-P" and still require "-batch". > > Prematurely attempting to share code, only because the current > vocabularies for two distinct concepts happen to overlap, is not > de-duplicating the code for maintainability. It is adding > unnecessary work other people need to do in the future when they > want to extend the system. Except, of course, that your hypothetical port_option and needs_batch settings would be handled at a different point altogether. I sense very strongly that this discussion has taken a very emotional turn, which is detrimental to the quality. So let's take a break here. Ciao, Johannes