Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > We generally submit patches on a single "topic", what a "topic" is is > often fuzzy, and sometimes a topic that's mostly trying to do X will fix > or change some unrelated Y "while at it". > > But patch or patches at the end of a series don't depend on anything > that comes before them, and could be "cherry-pick"'d directly on top of > "master" that's generally a sign that you should be submitting two sets > of patches, not one. > > Per > https://lore.kernel.org/git/2016ef2e342c2ec6517afa8ec3e57035021fb965.1650547400.git.dyroneteng@xxxxxxxxx/ > the "let's log config" is just something you happened to run into on > this topic, but it might have just as well been some other command. > > So I think it's better to split it up into its own topic. Make sense. > Yes, that sound good, although I'd make that "scope" line be: > > "scope": "global" | "worktree" | <add more things to the list here> > > Or just say: > > "scope": <a string that 'git config --show-scope' would return>, > > Which covers all the possibilities, without hardcoding them there. I think I'd like to prefer the second way, thanks for the input. > I mean that part of what you're adding is about this new "scope" > feature, but another part just seems to be explaining how the > trace2.configParams works in general. > > For the "works in general" let's either link to git-config(1), or if > that explanation is lacking improve it & link to it. Yes, I think the current explanation is OK for me in git-config[1], so I add the link as in previous reply (Search: 2db47572d4462e3788a92fd355b97df13b9bcc39) : +`trace2.configparams` can be used to output config values which you care +about(see linkgit:git-config[1). > Yes, something like that, although it's a bit odd to discuss "scope" > here and not have the trace show it yet, but that's fixed below.: Yes, because I want the result to be more obvious, if a config only in single scope maybe it's a litter harder to remember "Wo, what looks like if config is in multiple scopes?(although it's intentional)" > Yes, exactly! That makes it much clearer what the functional change was > about, i.e. we can see what parts of the trace are now different (the > scope is added to the trace). Yes. Thanks.
