On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:40:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Extremely minor nit, but if there are no other uses of PGP_SIGNATURE etc > > outside of this array (as I hope there wouldn't be after this series), > > would it make more sense to just include the literals inline in the > > array definition? That's one less layer of indirection when somebody is > > reading the code. > > It is good design-sense to shoot for fewer levels of indirection, > but I suspect that "'const char **' instead of maximally-sized fixed > array of strings" would require a named array and constants like > this: Yes, I agree with that direction (because it drops the magic numbers and lets us use existing argv_array helpers). > [...] > so we may end up having the same number of levels of indirection > anyway in the long-term final form. True, but at least this level of indirection is buying us something. :) > As readers may be able to read from the above, I also have a > suspicion that it is a mistake to pretend that "--verify" etc., > which merely happen to be common across the variants the series > covers, will stay forever to be common across _all_ variants and > that is why the field no longer is called "extra" args but is meant > to contain the full args. I'd be fine going in that direction, too. But I don't actually foresee adding new variants in the future. The point of this series versus the signingtool one is that it's limited to gpg and gpg-alikes. And I doubt we're likely to see more than the two that exist. So even if we do end up adding support for more tools in the long run, I think it will outgrow this config scheme. -Peff
