"Matthew Rogers via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: Matthew Rogers <mattr94@xxxxxxxxx> > > CONFIG_SCOPE_CMDLINE is generally used in the code to refer to config > values passed in via the -c option. Options passed in using this > mechanism share similar scoping characteristics with the --file and > --blob options of the 'config' command, namely that they are only in use > for that single invocation of git, and that they supersede the normal > system/global/local hierarchy. All of the above justifies why it makes sense to treat --file, --blob and "git -c VAR=VAL" as the same scope (i.e. it would have been a nice part of log message of the commit that introduced SCOPE_CMDLINE), but that is not something we need to justify now---we have such a scope for one-shot settings and these three sources are already treated as the same class. > This patch introduces > CONFIG_SCOPE_COMMAND to reflect this new idea, which also makes > CONFIG_SCOPE_CMDLINE redundant. The change in this commit is to rename CMDLINE to COMMAND. That is what the proposed log message for this step must justify. We internally use CONFIG_SCOPE_CMDLINE for the scope for the configuration variables that come from "git -c VAR=VAL", "git config --file=FILE" and "git config --blob=BLOB". As we are going to expose the scope names to end-users in the next step, let's rethink the half-cryptic "cmdline" and instead use a proper word "command" (the settings from three sources in this scope are all in effect only during a single invocation of a git command). or something like that. > --- a/t/helper/test-config.c > +++ b/t/helper/test-config.c > @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ static const char *scope_name(enum config_scope scope) > return "repo"; > case CONFIG_SCOPE_WORKTREE: > return "worktree"; > - case CONFIG_SCOPE_CMDLINE: > - return "cmdline"; > + case CONFIG_SCOPE_COMMAND: > + return "command"; The only externally observable effect of this patch is this output string from test-tool and we are not breaking end-user experience, but I am not sure if this churn is worth it. I dunno. In any case, the change to t1308 we saw in the previous step belongs to this step, I think.
