Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I just genuinely don't get where this is headed. I.e. for the last > iteration I did a demo patch on top that showed that there was no case > added by the series where the on-the-fly discovery wasn't equivalent to > the set-in-config value[4]. > > That change showed that after this series in a state where the config > *is* redundant to on the fly discovery (or maybe not, and we're just > missing test coverage). > > But since you're citing correctness do you have some repo->sub > relationship in mind that would be ambiguous in a way where the > configuration would resolve the ambiguity? This is an excellent question, which I wish I could have raised in my earlier response. A clear explanation why this setting is not a redundant copy but adds real information on top of what we should be able to learn from the filesystem structure would really help in justifying the new thing. Thanks.
