On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 12:19:44PM +0100, Ignacio Encinas Rubio wrote: > > > On 16/3/24 7:57, Jeff King wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 07:18:28PM +0100, Ignacio Encinas wrote: > > > >> diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt > >> index e3a74dd1c19d..9a22fd260935 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/config.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/config.txt > >> @@ -186,6 +186,11 @@ As for the naming of this keyword, it is for forwards compatibility with > >> a naming scheme that supports more variable-based include conditions, > >> but currently Git only supports the exact keyword described above. > >> > >> +`hostname`:: > >> + The data that follows the keyword `hostname:` is taken to be a > >> + pattern with standard globbing wildcards. If the current > >> + hostname matches the pattern, the include condition is met. > > > > Do we need to define "hostname" in more detail here? Specifically, I'm > > wondering whether the result will be a FQDN or not (i.e., the output of > > "hostname" vs "hostname -f"). Looking at the code I think it will just > > be the short name returned. That's probably OK, but it may be worth > > documenting. > > Thanks for pointing it out. I agree that it should be further clarified. > > Indeed, I was referring to the short name reported by gethostname(2), > which should agree with "hostname". What do you think about > > diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt > index 9a22fd260935..268a9fab7be0 100644 > --- a/Documentation/config.txt > +++ b/Documentation/config.txt > @@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ but currently Git only supports the exact keyword described above. > `hostname`:: > The data that follows the keyword `hostname:` is taken to be a > pattern with standard globbing wildcards. If the current > - hostname matches the pattern, the include condition is met. > + hostname (output of gethostname(2)) matches the Hmm. gethostname(2)'s manual page isn't overly specific on the details here, either. I admittedly don't love the idea of documenting this implementation detail (that is, that we are calling gethostname() and using its output to compare against). I think it's fine to say instead, "the short hostname", and leave it at that. Alternatively, you could say "If the machine's short hostname (as opposed to a fully-qualified hostname, as returned by `hostname -f`) matches the pattern [...]". I think I have a vague preference towards the latter. Thanks, Taylor
