Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> No. I fully accept your reasoning in the proposed log message why a >> handcrafted query to the config system is done in the location the >> patch adds a call. > > Now, I apologize. I had not reviewed the patch, and only just read it. > > I agree that it is a bit unfortunate that it uses such a non-standard way > that hard-codes "feature.experimental" in a different place than > repo-settings.c. You make it sound like it was a choice made by the implementation, but (1) a "non-standard" way may not have to stay non-standard forever (there may be many more experimental features that are not tied to a specific repository in the future), and (2) the patch needs to do it in a way that is not tied to a single repository because it is not at per-repository level decision. As long as we are aware of this limitation caused by the current "experimental" arrangement that is tied to a repository and can work towards extending it to support this new use case in the future, I do not think it is unfortunate at all. > Had it been a patch to repo-settings.c, I would now have tried to lobby > for including it into v2.27.0, but as it is, I fully agree with your > reasoning to just leave it out. No need to apologize for raising it as an issue---hearing from those with different risk tolerance from time to time is a good way to calibrate my own. Thanks.
