Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] gpg-interface: introduce new config to select per gpg format program

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 16, 2018, 22:23 UTC
Message-ID: <20180716222354.GA12482@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq36wisv3h.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:56:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> >> I'm okay with us forcing "openpgp".  That seems sane enough for now, and
> >> if people scream loudly, we can loosen it.
> >
> > Well, I specifically meant "are you sure subsections like this are a
> > good idea". But it seems like people think so?
> 
> I admit that I did not even consider that there may be better tool
> than using subsections to record this information.  What are the
> possibilities you have in mind (if you have one)?

I don't think there is another tool except two-level options, like "gpg.openpgpprogram" and "gpg.x509program".

Although those are a bit ugly, I just wondered if they might make things simpler, since AFAIK we are not planning to add more config options here. Like gpg.x509.someotherflag, nor gpg.someothertool.program.

Of course one reason _for_ the tri-level is that we might one day add gpg.x509.someotherflag, and this gives us room to do it with less awkwardness (i.e., a proliferation of gpg.x509someflag options).

-Peff