On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:40:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Part of me is a little sad at the duplication this creates. We could
> > just be checking
> >
> > #ifdef CURLOPT_TCP_KEEPALIVE
> >
> > in the second hunk, without the first one at all.
>
> I recall having exactly the same reaction when the above pattern
> first was floated.
>
> I still do not see how the GITCURL_* duplication is worth it. What
> do we want to gain from having a "central registry"?
>
> If it is to see which ones we care about, would it be sufficient to
> use the hits from "git grep -e CURL" with postprocessing?
Just brain-storming:
- It's probably a little easier to read, with the comments all
together with the definitions (keeping in mind that some of these
flags may need to be checked in several spots).
- Likewise a few of the checks are non-trivial, with multiple ANDs, so
it may be nicer to have a single registry (though the resulting
"GIT_CURL_HAVE_X_and_Y_and_Z" are pretty ugly to me).
- _Possibly_ it provides a knob for the user to say
"-DGIT_CURL_HAVE_FOO=1" by overriding our auto-detection. But since
most of these are "do we have FOO defined? Because are about to
reference it in the code", I don't see what that override would buy
you.
I dunno. I admit that I do not overly care that much. Handling curl
version dependencies was neglected for many years. If Ævar wants to take
a more active role in handling these and this is convenient for him, I'm
happy enough however it works.
-Peff
