Re: [PATCH] tag: support configuring --sort via .gitconfig

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 9, 2014, 22:15 UTC
Message-ID: <20140709221506.GA27388@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1404943640.23510.40.camel@jekeller-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com>

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 10:07:20PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote:

> I only noticed the sort recently, and I first tried to add an alias like
> "tag = tag --sort=v:refname" but git didn't pick up the alias of the
> name already.

It was only added recently (v2.0.0). :)

As you noticed, we do not allow aliases of actual git commands. I think it would be nice to notice and complain rather than silently ignoring them, though.

> I use a lot of version-style tags so I wanted this to be default. I
> did notice that the format of the sort parameter was actually pretty
> complex, so it seemed that more was intended to be added to it.

Yeah, the complexity is in preparation for becoming more flexible. I think we'd consider short options for commonly-used sorts, but were waiting for them to prove their value in the field.

> The only main issue would be the location of the sort-configure code,
> but that is actually easy to move so I don't think it's a big deal. The
> configuration interface should remain similar.

Agreed. It's not a problem moving code around. But once a user-facing feature is released, we try to keep compatibility with it. So as long as the config option's format stays the same (or strictly increases in features), that is fine.

> > Your link to git-tag[5] should be to git-tag[1], I think. The final
> > number is the manpage section.
> 
> Which I thought was 5 for the commands? Or is it always [1]?

Commands are 1. File formats are 5 (so there are some things in section 5 in git). "man man" has more.

Show 8 quoted lines

> > I was going to complain that this is duplicating the sort documentation
> > from git-tag, but I see you actually moved it from the --sort option to
> > here, and refer back from there to here.
> 
> I actually didn't remove anything from git-tag, I only added the
> reference to git-config. But I can keep from duplicating the
> documentation in there. I like the idea of using an included file
> though.

Oh, sorry, I just misread the patch. Then I'll fall back to my original complaint. :) We should not duplicate, but just refer back to git-tag(1).

> Alright that makes sense. I will send a v2 soon. Thanks for the
> comments.

You're welcome. Thanks for working on git (and welcome to the list, I think).

-Peff