Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] config: add conditional include
- From
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
- Date
- Mar 7, 2017, 18:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAGZ79kbMP5n3Pteq1OtOzK69dZkv1QmpiFm8jhYV7+LKVHvi3A@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170307084717.i2jru77v3rhd443e@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 02:44:27PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> > +static int include_condition_is_true(const char *cond, size_t cond_len)
>> > +{
>> ...
>> > +
>> > + error(_("unrecognized include condition: %.*s"), (int)cond_len, cond);
>> > + /* unknown conditionals are always false */
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>>
>> Thanks for putting an error message here. I was looking at what
>> is currently queued as origin/nd/conditional-config-include,
>> which doesn't have this error() (yet / not any more?)
>
> It's "not any more". It was in the original and I asked for it to be
> removed during the last review.Okay. The joys of contradicting opinions on a mailing list. :)
Show 16 quoted lines
> >> I'd strongly suggest to keep the error message here as that way >> a user can diagnose e.g. a typo in the condition easily. >> >> If we plan to extend this list of conditions in the future, and a user >> switches between versions of git, then they may see this message >> on a regular basis (whenever they use the 'old' version). > > That would make it unlike the rest of the config-include mechanism > (which quietly ignores things it doesn't understand, like include.foo, > or include.foo.path), as well as the config code in general (which > ignores misspelt keys). > > Some of that "quiet when you don't understand it" is historical > necessity. Older versions _can't_ complain about not knowing > include.path, because they don't yet know it's worth complaining about.
agreed
Show 10 quoted lines
> Likewise here, if this ships in v2.13 and a new condition "foo:" ships > in v2.14, you get: > > v2.12 - no complaint; we don't even understand includeIf at all > v2.13 - complain; we know includeIf, but not "foo:" > v2.14 - works as expected > > Which is kind of weird and inconsistent. But maybe the typo-detection > case is more important to get right than consistency across historical > versions.
Oh, I see. I was contemplating a future in which 2.12 is not used anymore.
When looking at other examples, such as url.<...>.insteadOf we also do not warn about typos (well we can't actually).
In diff.<driver>.(command/binary/..) we know the limited set of drivers, which is similar to the situation we have here.
Maybe a compromise between typo checking (edit distance < 2 -> warn; silent for larger distances) and the consistency over time is desired. But this is even more code to write.
So for now I retract my strong opinion and be happy with what is presented as-is for the reasons Peff gave.
Thanks, Stefan