On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:16:27PM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > > If the parameter is now required, then it might make sense for it to > > become an actual function parameter instead of being stuffed into the > > config_options struct. That would give you your breaking change, plus > > make it more obvious to the reader that it is not optional. > > > > The downside is that has to get shuttled around manually through the > > callstack. Most of the damage is in builtin/config.c, where we call > > git_config_with_options() a lot. > > > > include_by_gitdir is also a bit annoying, as we pass around the > > config_options struct through our void-pointer callbacks. But we can > > solve that by sticking the git_dir into the include_data struct (whose > > exact purpose is to carry the information we need to handle includes). > > > > The patch below (on top of Brandon's series does that). > > I really don't understand why this has to be so difficult and why a > 'breaking change' is even needed. Duy just added the 'git_dir' field to > the config_options struct in April of this year (2185fde56 config: > handle conditional include when $GIT_DIR is not set up) and now we want > to strip it out again? That's not even two months. Seems very counter > productive and makes the api more unwieldy. I could go either way on it. But note that you're not just changing the existing opt->git_dir behavior. If I call git_config_with_options() without having set opt->git_dir, the call will now quietly ignore repo config. But even before opt->git_dir existed, calling that function would always have read from repo config (when we're in one, of course). So if there's a patch in flight that adds a call to git_config_with_options(), it's now very subtly broken. The reason I say "I could go either way" is that we can make a guess as to whether there are any topics in flight that add such a call. There aren't any in pu right now. That's not the whole world, of course; people may have topics they haven't yet published. Or they may have long running forks. Git for Windows is one, and I maintain one that GitHub uses internally. But GfW is public and doesn't have any new calls (and nor does my fork). In general, it's kind of an unlikely call for a fork or a new branch to add. So at some point I think we say "good enough, it's not worth the hassle" and this may be such a case. -Peff