On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:05:20AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am not sure about "obviousness", but I agree that we do not know > that "conditional include" would be the only thing we want for the > second level for "include.path" directive. "include-if.<cond>.path" > is better for that reason. > > I presume that you could still do > > [include "if:gitdir=$path"] > path = ... > > i.e. design the second level to begin with a token that tells > readers what it means (and assign "if:" token for "conditional > include"), but I do not think it is worth it. Yep, all true. > I also imagine that > > [include] > condition = ... > path = ... > > is easier to read and write by end-users, but it probably is not > feasible because it requires too invasive change to the current code > to teach it to grok such construct. I am against that as it introduces a dependency in the presence and ordering between two config variables, which can yield some surprises. > Between "include-if" and "includeIf", if people find the latter not > too ugly, I'd prefer to keep it the way Duy posted. Because of the > way "include.path" and "include-if.<cond>.path" work, we can declare > that they are not like ordinary configuration variable definition > at all but are higher-level directives and that may be a sufficient > justification to allow "-" in its name, though, if people find > "includeIf" too ugly a name to live. OK. I can live with includeIf. -Peff