On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:50 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Eric D <eric.decosta@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Makes sense. How about FSMONITOR_OVERRIDE_REQUIRED ? The error message
> > could then indicate that remote repos are normally unsupported but
> > that setting the fsmonitor.allowRemote flag overrides this behavior.
>
> I actually think check_allow_remote() should be renamed to have
> "config" somewhere in its name, and return -1, 0 or 1 and not "enum
> fsmonitor_reason".
>
> static int check_config_allowremote(...)
> {
> int allow;
>
> if (repor_config_get_bool(..., &allow))
> return allow;
> return -1; /* undecided */
> }
>
> then caller can do
>
> switch (check_config_allowremote(...)) {
> case 0: /* config overrides and disables */
> return FSMONITOR_REASON_REMOTE;
> case 1: /* config overrides and enables */
> return FSMONITOR_REASON_OK;
> default:
> break; /* config has no opinion */
> }
> return check_smb(...);
>
> > If we do as you suggest above, then fsmonitor.allowRemote=true would
> > override regardless of the protocol being used.
>
> Exactly. The code should not try to outsmart the user.
>
> If the user says they wants to use it on a particular remote, even
> if you do not know if that particular remote system works, just let
> them try and see if it works. If it does not, they can easily
> disable, because the enabiling was a deliberate act by them in the
> first place. They know how to fix it.
>
> Thanks.
>
100% agree with you, thanks.
