Re: [PATCH/RFC] Hacky version of a glob() driven config include
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 7, 2010, 20:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <m3k4rfe90n.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
- In-Reply-To
- <1273180440-8641-1-git-send-email-avarab@gmail.com>
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
> This is not ready for inclusion in anything. Commiting for RFC on > whether this way of doing it is sane in theory.
I think this is a good idea at least in theory.
> Known bugs: > > * Breaks the model of being able to *set* config values. That > doesn't work for the included files. Maybe not a bug.
Errr... do I understand correctly that it simply means that you are not able to set config values that came from included files, in included files?
This is quite serious limitation.
> > * Errors in the git_config_from_file() call in glob_include_config() > aren't passed upwards.
Hmmm...
>
> * It relies on the GNU GLOB_TILDE extension with no
> alternative. That can be done by calling getenv("HOME") and
> s/~/$home/."git config --path <variable>" expands leading '~' to $HOME, and ~user to home directory of given user. Why not use this?
> > * The whole bit with saving/restoring global state for config > inclusion is evil, but then again so is the global state.
Why not encapsulate those global variables in a struct, passed to appropriate functions, with a global variable holding an instance of such struct (IIRC similarly to what is done for "the_index").
> > * We don't check for recursion. But Git gives up eventually after > after spewing a *lot* of duplicate entry errors. Not sure how to > do this sanely w/symlinks.
The alternates mechanism has some depth limit; why not use it also for config file inclusion? The machanism is quite similar...
> > Not-signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
You can simply do not add Signed-off-by for an RFC patch...
Show 15 quoted lines
> ---
>
> > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 07:50, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote:
> > > Isn't it better to have a way to include files instead?
> >
> > Probably yes. Programs like Apache HTTPD, rsyslog and others just use
> > ${foo}conf.d by convention by supporting config inclusion.
>
> Here's an evil implementation of this. I know the code is horrid &
> buggy (see above). But is the general idea sane. I thought it would be
> better to submit this for comments before I went further with it.
>
> config.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> t/t1300-repo-config.sh | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)No documentation. [...]
Show 14 quoted lines
> diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh > index f11f98c..4df6658 100755 > --- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh > +++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh > @@ -824,4 +824,47 @@ test_expect_success 'check split_cmdline return' " > test_must_fail git merge master > " > > +cat > .git/config << EOF > +[some] > + variable = blah > +[voodoo] > + include = .git/more_config_* > +EOF
I don't like this syntax.
First, it forces git-config to hide all 'include' keys. I think there might be some legitimate <section>.include config variables (perhaps outside git-core); with this patch they are impossible.
Second, I guess that the section name has absolutely no meaning here. If included config file has section.key config variable, i.e.:
[section]
key = valuethe variable in master config file (visible by git-config) would not be voodoo.section.key.
Third, what happens with the sections in master config file? If I have the following in .git/config
[voodoo]
var1 = val1
include = .git/more_config
var2 = val2and the .git/more_config has
[foo]
bar = bazwould "git config --list" see 'voodoo.var2' (i.e. sections in included file does not change parsing of master file), or would it see 'foo.var2'?
I would propose
include .git/more_config_*
if not for the fast that it would trip older git. Perhaps
[include ".git/more_config_*"]
or
[include .git/more_config_*]
or
## include ".git/more_config_*"
-- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git