On Mon, Oct 25 2021, Jonathan Tan wrote: >> I had some concerns about the specifics of the implementation/what >> seemed to be tailoring it a bit too closely to one use-case[1][2], not >> inherently with the idea (although I think e.g. for brian that more >> closely reflects his thoughts). >> >> Anyway, just saying that aside from this RFC I don't think we were at >> the point of really fleshing out what this would look like, and there >> being some hard "no", so I think that idea could still be pursued. > > Which idea specifically do you think could still be pursued? I meant the whole in-repo .gitconfig. I.e. to the extent that you're submitting this as an alternative to that because of the negative feedback on that RFC. >> On this proposal: this also applies globally to all history, but I don't >> have the same concern with that as the 1=1 mapping of remote-suggested >> hooks, our path includes work that way, after all. >> >> I think it would be nice if you could think about if/how this and the >> "onbranch" include would work together though to serve the general case >> better. >> >> Also if you have a repo with N remotes each where "origin" tracks URLs >> at git.example.com, and you add a "dev" tracking dev.example.com, will >> the config apply if you're say on a branch tracking the "live" server, >> if you've said "include this for repos matching dev.example.com? > > Right now, the feature is only dependent on remote URLs configured > through remote.?.url. It wouldn't work with "onbranch" because there's > no way to combine conditions (and I have no plans to do that). I think > that if you have something that you want depending on which branch > you're on, you can just use the existing "onbranch" feature. I mean with this and the below... >> Arguably that's what you want, but perhaps something that those more >> used to the centralized workflows wouldn't consider as being unintuitive >> for users who might want to add this config only for their main "origin" >> remote. We don't really have a way of marking that special-ness though, >> except maybe checkout.defaultRemote. > > What do you mean by adding a config for a specific remote? ...what happens if you add a google.com remote for a repository that "lives" on github.com. I.e. are the semantics "match any remote", or "match the 'primary' remote (origin?" etc. >> I'm also still somewhat mystified at how this would better serve your >> userbase than the path-based included, i.e. the selling point of the >> remote-suggested configuration was that it would Just Work. >> >> But for this the users would either need to setup the config themselves >> for your remote, but that would be easier than pro-actively cloning in >> "work" or whatever? I guess, just wondering if I'm missing something. >> >> Or if it's a partly-automated system where some automation is dropping >> in a /etc/gitconfig.d/google-remote-config-include > > Yes, the config is meant to be handled e.g. through a package manager > like apt. We don't want to prescribe directory structures like "work", > which is why the include is conditional upon the remote URL. > > Even if the user pro-actively clones into "work", the user still needs > to set up the conditional config, so I don't see how that is a net > benefit. Ah, that explains it. I assumed both cases would be ones where the user would need to manually enable the 'configuration' (or cloning to a given subdir). >> I wonder if this >> whole thing wouldn't be better for users with such special-needs if we >> just supported an "early config hook". >> >> i.e. similar to how we read trace2 config from /etc/gitconfig early, we >> could start picking up a hook that just so happens to conform to the >> config schema Emily's config-based hooks use. >> >> So the /etc/gitconfig would have say: >> >> hook.ourConfigThingy.command=/usr/bin/googly-git-config >> hook.ourConfigThingy.event=include-config >> >> That hook would just produce a config snippet to be included on STDOUT. >> >> Since it's an arbitrary external command it would nicely get around any >> chicken and egg problems in git itself, it could run "git remote -v", >> inspect the equivalent of an "onbranch" etc. etc, then just dynamically >> produce config-to-be-included. > > I see that later on, you suggest an environment variable to guard > against recursion. > > One thing is that if there are multiple such hooks, each one won't be > able to see what the other hooks have produced. Yes, although aside from this hook that's a general caveat with the proposed config-based hooks, I think if you need a hook that does that (whether it's this, or pre-receive etc.) our answer is "put it in your own wrapper". > If the feature you described already existed in Git, I think I could use > that, but if we're deciding between implementing the config hook you > describe versus something with more constraints, I think the one I > proposed is better for now. Some design points that have already been > discussed are whether setting a config during processing of an included > file would then invalidate the include and also the order of operations, > both of which would be much more difficult to control with config hooks. I suggested it because maybe it would be a lot simpler, i.e. we don't need such a feature to be aware of remote config at all, or having to "read forward" to find it, maybe it would be more complex. I haven't tried to implement it. >> Please don't take this as some objection to your current proposal, just >> a thought on something that might entirely bypass odd edge cases and >> arbitrary limitations associated with doing this all in the "main" >> process on-the-fly. >> >> The special-ness with that one would need to be that we'd say it >> wouldn't have the normal "last set wins" semantics, or maybe we could do >> that and just note that we saw it, and execute the "include" when we >> detect the end of the full config parsing (I'm not familiar enough with >> those bits to say where that is). > > The "last set" would be those set by the hooks, so yes, a user would > need to know to make their own hook in order to override anything set by > the hooks. The end of the full config parsing is in > config_with_options(). On the "user would need to know" that's the same if it's config? I.e. in either case it would be in /etc/gitconfig or whatever shipped by the *.deb package. Anyway, I really just meant this as a suggestion, and one that might make things simpler. If you don't think it makes sense...
