Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> int git_config_include(const char *var, const char *value, void *data)
> {
> struct config_include_data *inc = data;
> + const char *cond, *key;
> + int cond_len;
> int ret;
>
> /*
> @@ -185,6 +271,12 @@ int git_config_include(const char *var, const char *value, void *data)
>
> if (!strcmp(var, "include.path"))
> ret = handle_path_include(value, inc);
> +
> + if (!parse_config_key(var, "includeif", &cond, &cond_len, &key) &&
> + (cond && include_condition_is_true(cond, cond_len)) &&
> + !strcmp(key, "path"))
> + ret = handle_path_include(value, inc);
> +
> return ret;
> }
So "includeif.path" (misspelled one without any condition) falls
through to "return ret" and gives the value we got from inc->fn().
I am OK with that (i.e. "missing condition is false").
Or we can make it go to handle_path_include(), effectively making
the "include.path" a short-hand for "includeIf.path". I am also OK
with that (i.e. "missing condition is true").
Or we could even have "include.[<condition>.]path" without
"includeIf"? I am not sure if it is a bad idea that paints
ourselves in a corner, but somehow I find it tempting.