On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:40:51PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 06:29:18PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > > +ensure that the variable(s) are of the given type and convert the value to the > > > +canonical form. If no type specifier is passed, no checks or transformations are > > > +performed on the value. > > > @@ -160,30 +158,34 @@ See also <<FILES>>. > > > --list:: > > > List all variables set in config file, along with their values. > > > > > > ---bool:: > > > - 'git config' will ensure that the output is "true" or "false" > > > +--type <type>:: > > > + 'git config' will ensure that any input output is valid under the given type > > > + constraint(s), and will canonicalize outgoing values in `<type>`'s canonical > > > + form. > > > > In response to my question[2] about whether the typesetting "[type]" > > meant that it was optional, you responded[1] that it was not, thus > > correctly changed the typesetting to "<type>". However... > > Right, "--type" without a specifier means nothing (also, I missed this > in my review, but "input output" in the quoted text?) I missed this too; thanks for pointing it out. I have amended this in the forthcoming re-roll. > > > diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh > > > @@ -1622,4 +1623,21 @@ test_expect_success 'later legacy specifiers are given precedence' ' > > > +test_expect_success '--no-type unsets type specifiers' ' > > > + echo "10" > expect && > > > + git config --type=bool --no-type core.number >actual && > > > + test_cmp expect actual > > > +' > > > > What does --no-type mean and why is it being tested? If this is an > > explicitly supported user-facing option, should it be documented? If > > it's not meant to be user-facing, then why are we enforcing its > > presence and behavior via a test? > > It would be the same as if no --type option had been given. The current > documentation says: > > If no type specifier is passed, no checks or transformations are > performed on the value. > > That's retained in the DESCRIPTION section, but it may be worth a > mention of the "--no-type" behavior in the OPTIONS section, too. I > dunno. Fair; my inclination is to document it, since it is potentially useful for scripts (as I mentioned in my mail to Eric). Thanks, Taylor
