Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] config: introduce discovery.bare and protected config

From: Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com>
Date: Jul 8, 2022, 20:35 UTC
Message-ID: <kl6l1quv737u.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtu7swgxd.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 21 quoted lines

> "Glen Choo via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> This version incorporates most of Taylor's comments and suggestions. Thanks
>> especially for the wording suggestions, I struggled with those a lot :)
>>
>> (I believe) I've responded upthread with my intention for each comment. The
>> only differences between that and the actual changes are:
>>
>>  * In Documentation/git-config.txt, I dropped a suggestion to mention that
>>    "git config --local" is identical to the default behavior when writing
>>    options because I found it too hard to fit in.
>>
>>  * In Documentation/config/discovery.txt, I took Taylor's suggestion, but
>>    didn't mention "discovery" for the same reasons.
>>
>>  * I decided to leave out the protected config lookup functions. I made some
>>    POC patches at:
>
> These patches overall looked ok.  I am not very happy to see the
> proliferation of namespaces like safe.* and discovery.* that would
> not likely to get the second variable, though.

Fair. I think `discovery.bare` is similar enough to `safe.directory` that it could belong in the safe.* namespace if we find a good name for it.

We rejected "safe.bareRepository" earlier because of the insinuation that bare repos are unsafe. Maybe:

- safe.bareDiscovery
- safe.bareRepositoryDiscovery
- safe.unspecifiedBareRepository
- safe.discoveredBareRepository

"safe.unspecifiedBareRepository" is sounding pretty good to me actually.. Any thoughts?