From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 21:51:46 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/4] config: allow http..* any user matching Message-ID: <7v1u6qclfx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: "Kyle J. McKay" writes: >> A solid wall of text is somewhat hard to read, so I'd queue the >> equivalent of the following "git diff -w" output on top. > > Can I send out the change as a 'fixup!' patch? Or do I need to send a > new v9 patch series with the documentation update? If you are OK with splitting it into two paragraphs with the "longest" clarification tweak (the "patch" I showed you), just saying so and I can squash ;-) so there is no need to resend. >> diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt >> index c418adf..635ed5d 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/config.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/config.txt >> @@ -1521,9 +1521,11 @@ http..*:: >> path portion is an exact match or a prefix that matches at a "/" >> boundary. If does not include a user name, it will match a url >> with any username otherwise the user name must match as well (the >> - password part, if present in the url, is always ignored). >> Longer >> - path matches take precedence over shorter matches no matter >> what order >> - they occur in. For example, if both >> "https://user@example.com/ >> path" and >> + password part, if present in the url, is always ignored). A >> + with longer path matches take precedence over shorter matches >> no matter >> + what order they occur in the configuration file. >> ++ >> +For example, if both "https://user@example.com/path" and >> "https://example.com/path/name" are used as a config value and >> then "https://user@example.com/path/name/here" is passed to a git >> command, the settings in the "https://example.com/path/name" section > > OK. ... which essentially is your "OK" ;-) >> I am not yet convinced that the precedence rule specified in this >> what we want (I do not have an example why it is *not* what we want, >> either). Another definition could be "if user@ is present in the >> request, give lower precedence to config entries for the site >> without user@ than entries with user@", and I do not have a strong >> opinion myself which one between the two is better (and there may be >> third and other possible rule). >> >> Comments? > > Consider this site: > ... > So my thinking was that having user matches take precedence over path > length matches can result in endless additions to the config file > (because you have to list all the other users to override a sub area > and that could be a large list) whereas having path length matches > take precedence over user matches will only result in a few, finite > additions to the config file (the number of already-configured items > with a longer path).