Re: [PATCH 0/3] Convert grep to recurse in-process
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jul 12, 2017, 18:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20170712183340.ry2bgv73wz2ownkj@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170712182447.GF93855@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:24:47AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Show 14 quoted lines
> Jeff King wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:06:03AM -0700, Brandon Williams wrote: > > >> Each 'struct repository' does have its own config so we could > >> potentially want a config in a submodule to override some config in the > >> superproject. Though for right now it may be simpler to not worry about > >> doing this overriding, mostly because you would only want to allow > >> overriding of some configuration and not all configuration. One example > >> would be the number of threads allowed in grep, > [...] > > I think that's probably one of the more complicated cases, and I don't > > think it really needs to be done on day one. > > That's fair. Could you give an example of a simpler case?
I think core.quotepath that I gave is one example that I'd expect to work differently than it does in 'next'. Though I really think that's a fairly uninteresting one, as it's extremely unlikely to be set on a per-repo basis.
Something like color.grep.* is in the same boat (I think it ought to respect submodule config, but I'd be surprised if anybody cares).
I know those are kind of lame examples, and if they remain broken forever, I don't know if anybody would care. I'm more concerned about us missing a case that causes a regression (and unlike some regressions, where you say "oops, a bug" and fix it, I'd worry that we'll have made a big jump to an in-process model, and the only fixes are "implement a complete split-config solution" or "revert back to multiple processes").
I do agree that not having concrete examples makes it harder to reason about the desired semantics.
-Peff