Hello all,
On 2024-03-07 00:46, Taylor Blau wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 09:06:08AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
> - `git config foo.bar` -> `git config get foo.bar`
>
> - `git config foo.bar value` -> `git config set foo.bar value`
I actually have been perfectly OK with the above two, but I agree
that ...
Same here, though I think that we are probably both biased by many
years
of familiarity with the existing syntax.
Ditto. Though, having "get" and "set" commands will be nice, making it
all more self descriptive.
> - `git config foo.bar value value-pattern` -> `git config set-all
> foo.bar value value-pattern`
... this was less than discoverable, and would be a good update.
This one ...
Agreed.
Also agreed. Having the point below in mind, perhaps we could actually
end up with "set --all" instead of "set-all".
> - `git config --get-urlmatch` -> `git config get-urlmatch`.
... is a Meh to me, personally. I'd not actively push it
enthusiastically, but I'd passively accept its existence.
I don't have strong feelings about this, but I wonder if `--urlmatch`
(or `--url-match`) might be an argument to the "get" mode of this
sub-command instead. Something like `git config get --urlmatch` feels
much more natural to me than `git config get-urlmatch`.
Good point. I'd vote for having "get --urlmatch" or "get --url-match",
because it feels more natural to me, it doesn't "clog up" the command
space, and such an approach, in general, allows git-config(1) to be
expanded later easier with more new arguments for the existing commands.
