Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> What's your intention of sending these?
>
> For them to be picked up on top of your jc/gpg-lazy-init.
>
>> 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...
>
> I understood your "I specifically did not want anybody to start doing
> this line of analysis" in [1] to mean that you didn't want to have the
> sort of change that the last paragraph of 2/2 notes that we're
> deliberately not doing.
I didn't want to see "oh you are calling lazy_init here but you can
delay it even further" kind of comments that is wrong and wastes our
time.
> I.e. that we'd like to keep the gpg_interface_lazy_init() boilerplate,
> even though we might carefully reason that a specific API entry point
> won't need to initialize the file-scoped config variables right now.
It is the complete opposite of what I meant.
Changing
git_am_config(...) {
return git_default_config(...);
}
...
git_config(git_am_config);
to
/* no git_am_config() */
...
git_config(git_default_config);
is perfectly fine as a clean-up post series.
If we are moving away from git_config() callback style, and move to
git_config_get_*() style, the upthread already said it does not have
a good risk/benefit ratio, but if we were to do so, then we should
not leave some still using the callback style while others using
git_config_get_*(), which will lead to configuration read in a wrong
order and easily breaking precedence rules.
And if we were to move away completely from the callback style, then
I do not see a point to build such a series on top of the lazy init
patch, which is about staying with the callback style.
So, that is exactly why I asked the question after seeing it was
marked to apply on top of the lazy init thing, which did not make
sense to me.
