Re: [PATCH v3] advice: use global config for default branch name

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 9, 2026, 22:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20260909224603.GA195381@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20260909212214.94151-1-ub4nal@mail.ru>

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 12:22:13AM +0300, Vsevolod Myalitsin wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> > I had somehow hoped we could reuse the existing CONFIG_SCOPE enum
> > without having to redeclare it ourselves.
> 
> One concern about reusing enum config_scope: since
> CONFIG_SCOPE_UNKNOWN is 0, all existing advice_setting entries without
> an explicitly specified scope_hint would default to
> CONFIG_SCOPE_UNKNOWN rather than CONFIG_SCOPE_LOCAL.
> 
> I believe this is incorrect, since the existing behavior is local
> scope by default. However, if you consider CONFIG_SCOPE_UNKNOWN
> appropriate here and it satisfies the intended requirements, I have no
> objection to using the existing enum.

Any config can work at any scope. These are really just recommendations on where the user might want to write a value. So I think it would be fine to treat UNKNOWN as "just suggest the default location for writing", as we do now.

TBH, I am not really sure what the criteria are for suggesting one advice option as --global or not. I'd think most of them are about squelching advice that the user already knows about, and thus they would go into --global. I didn't really follow the earlier discussion that led up to this patch, though.

-Peff