On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 2:06 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "Matthew Rogers via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: Matthew Rogers <mattr94@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Previously when iterating through git config variables, worktree config > > and local config were both considered "CONFIG_SCOPE_REPO". This was > > never a problem before as no one had needed to differentiate between the > > two cases. > > Hmph, then "fix" on the title is a bit misleading, no? > > The enum may not have been as fine grained as you would have liked, > but if there was nothing broken, then we are doing this not to "fix" > anything. > I see where you're coming from, but I would definitely consider this a "fix" in that it's something that (as explained in the deleted comment) should have been this way from the start but was unnecessary as no one had a need for it yet. But I definitely wouldn't be against changing the phrasing to something like "clean up" or whatever your preferred wording would be. > A more important thing to explain would probably be why we > (i.e. those who propose this change, those who give favoriable > reviews to it, and those who accept it change to the system) would > want to see finer-grained classification. What do we expect to be > able to do with the resulting finer-grained set that we wouldn't be > able to with the original, and why is it a good thing? That is what > readers of the proposed log message of this change would want to > see, I would think. > This is really more prep for patch 4 later on in this series, as a user who ran the proposed '--show-scope' later on in the series would care what was "worktree" vs "local". Regardless, I think the two options I have would be to amend the commit message with that extra information or roll it together with patch 4
