On Mon, Sep 27 2021, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 01:52:26AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> An implicit assumption of mine in the simpler positive-match-only >> version (which I should have made clear) is that anyone who needs this >> sort of complexity can just arrange to wrap their "git" in a function, >> or do this sort of thing in their ~/.bashrc, i.e. just: >> >> if code_of_arbitrary_complexity >> then >> export GIT_DO_XYZ_INCLUDES=1 >> fi >> >> Then in your config: >> >> includeIf.envBool:GIT_DO_XYZ_INCLUDES.path=~/.gitconfig.d/xyz.cfg >> >> And having written that out I think the best thing to do is probably to >> have a version that only does the envExists and envBool version (or just >> envBool), and skip envIs and envMatch entirely. > > I'm not sure I agree. If you are willing to wrap git, then you can just > add: > > git -c include.path=~/.gitconfig.d/xyz.cfg > > to the command-line in the first place. Or if you're willing to use our > undocumented interface, you can even do it in your .bashrc: > > if code_of_arbitrary_complexity > then > GIT_CONFIG_PARAMETERS="'include.path'='~/.gitconfig.d/xyz.cfg'" > fi Sort of, that'll give you unconditional inclusion, but won't e.g. handle a case where the env include only runs in some .git/config, or depending on other inclusion (e.g. in ~/dev/git, but only if XYZ env var). But yeah, it won't handle all potential cases. I figured for this sort of thing it was better to start small and see if the provided interface was enough.. > The value of this env matching is that it is done at run-time without > wrapping, and can meaningfully inspect the state of the world. E.g., the > $TERM thing that started this thread. Yeah, maybe we should have at least an ifStrEQ, whatever we call it... >> In the case of env:PATH we're just setting users up for some buggy or >> unexpected interaction with something that would be better done either >> via a gitdir include, or if they really need $PATH they can just wrap >> "git" in a function that sets a boolean inclusion variable. > > Yes, I have trouble imagining why any matching on env:PATH would be > useful (or $PWD, since we have the much less confusing gitdir > conditional). Which isn't to say I want to forbid it, but just because > people can shoot themselves in the foot with complexity doesn't mean > that "envIs" is a bad thing when it's not misused. I'm biased by past on-list discussions where existing behavior, no matter if unintentional or emergent can be really hard to fix once established. >> > I think it's just the mashed-up colons that I find ugly in the first >> > one. But I agree the latter isn't that nice either, and introduces the >> > ambiguity you describe. >> >> FWIW I hacked up a --config-key --config-value pairing so you could set >> keys with "=" in them on the command-line, I'm not sure I like the >> interface, but it gets rid of that ":" v.s. "=" edge case: >> https://github.com/avar/git/commit/a86053df48b > > Yeah, we talked about that a while ago, but nobody liked the interface > enough to actually code it (and as far as I know, it's really > theoretical; nobody has actually wanted to set such an option from the > command-line yet, and we have the --config-env stuff for people who want > to robustly pass along arbitrary keys). > > A perhaps more subtle but less awkward to type version is to just > require two arguments, like: > > git --config <key> <value> ... I suppose --config would work like that, you can'd to it with "-c". I think it's more confusing to have a "-c" and "--config" which unlike most other things don't follow the obvious long and short option names working the same way. > but I'd just as soon continue to leave it un-implemented if nobody has > actually needed it in practice. *nod*. I do think it's bad design to introduce an "env" inclusion feature that relies on "=" though while we don't have something like that, i.e. I think we should probably not add that --config-{key,value}, but avoiding the arbitrary limitation of not being able to specify certain config keys seems prudent in that case, and since the "=" v.s. ":" is only an aesthetic preference I think being able to compose things without limitations wins out. We do have the "=" key limitation now, but I don't think it's there for any key we currently define, except things like "url.<base>.insteadOf" if the "<base> has a "=" in it (and maybe just that one).
