Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yeah, I can't think of a concise-yet-clear way to convey this to users > (if I had thought of one, I wouldn't have prefaced my original comment > with "Wondering out loud"). > > Spitballing here... > > `hasconfig:remote.*.url:`:: > The data that follows this keyword is taken to > be a pattern with standard globbing wildcards and two > additional ones, `**/` and `/**`, that can match multiple > components. The first time this keyword is seen, the rest of > the config files will be scanned for remote URLs (without > applying any values). If there exists at least one remote URL > that matches this pattern, the include condition is met. > > - Files included by this option (directly or indirectly) are not allowed > - to contain remote URLs. > + Because new remote URLs might affect the correctness of the include > + condition, files included by this option (directly or indirectly) are > + not allowed to contain remote URLs. Junio suggested another approach [1] - I'll try that and see what I come up with. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqmtl8m8wj.fsf@gitster.g/ > Although, upon further reflection, I wonder if this approach of banning > config variables really gives us the safety we want after all. Reworking > your example, say we expand "hasconfig" to include > "hasconfig:branch.*.merge" then we can have this in the main config: > > [remote a] > url = baz > [branch c] > merge = bar > > [includeif hasconfig:remote.*.url:foo] > path = foo > [includeif hasconfig:branch.*.merge:bar] > path = bar > > and "bar" contains: > > [remote b] > url = foo > > we end up with the exact same question of "Should "foo" be included?". > This shows that the rule isn't actually "files included by > hasconfig:remote.*.url cannot include remote.*.url", but the much more > restrictive "files included by hasconfig:<anything> cannot include any > config values that can appear in hasconfig". This sounds pretty unusable > to me.. This was my original idea actually (using any config variable anywhere bans you from that config variable in all "includeif hasconfig"). I think it would still be usable - you just have to be careful in which config variables you use. But we don't have plans to include other variables now anyway. > But I think that with the semantics you've defined, we don't really need > to forbid config variables. This section describes: > > The first time this keyword is seen, the rest of the config files will > be scanned for remote URLs (without applying any values). If there > exists at least one remote URL that matches this pattern, the include > condition is met. > > which, to me, gives us a pass to say "the first time we see a hasconfig, > we will do an additional scan without applying values". That doesn't > sound _too_ confusing to me, but I don't know how it looks to someone > with fresh eyes. > > Forgive me if this exact suggestion came up before on-list (I know we've > discussed this exact approach off-list). This "additional scan without applying values" is not very well-defined, though. In the scenario I described in [2], should "foo" be included? "Yes" because it is referenced (even though at that time, nobody has ever head of the URL "foo") or "no" because at that point in time in the scan, nobody has ever heard of the URL "foo"? [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/20211209223919.513113-1-jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/
