Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Feb 09 2023, Jeff King wrote: > >> If the gpg code used git_config_get_string(), etc, then they could just >> access each key on demand (efficiently, from an internal hash table), >> which reduces the risk of "oops, we forgot to initialize the config >> here". It does probably mean restructuring the code a little, though >> (since you'd often have an accessor function to get "foo.bar" rather >> than assuming "foo.bar" was parsed into an enum already, etc). That may >> not be worth the effort (and risk of regression) to convert. > > I'd already played around with that a bit as part of reviewing Junio's > change, this goes on top of that. What's your intention of sending these? I think we are already in agreement that the churn may not be worth the risk, so if these are "and here is the churn would look like, not for application", I would understand it and appreciate it. But did you mean that these patches are for application? I am not sure... Thanks.
