Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] gpg-interface: introduce new config to select per gpg format program

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:56:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> >> I'm okay with us forcing "openpgp".  That seems sane enough for now, and
> >> if people scream loudly, we can loosen it.
> >
> > Well, I specifically meant "are you sure subsections like this are a
> > good idea". But it seems like people think so?
> 
> I admit that I did not even consider that there may be better tool
> than using subsections to record this information.  What are the
> possibilities you have in mind (if you have one)?

I don't think there is another tool except two-level options, like
"gpg.openpgpprogram" and "gpg.x509program".

Although those are a bit ugly, I just wondered if they might make things
simpler, since AFAIK we are not planning to add more config options
here. Like gpg.x509.someotherflag, nor gpg.someothertool.program.

Of course one reason _for_ the tri-level is that we might one day add
gpg.x509.someotherflag, and this gives us room to do it with less
awkwardness (i.e., a proliferation of gpg.x509someflag options).

-Peff



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux