Re: [PATCH 5/7] enforce `xfuncname` precedence over `funcname`

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Jul 24, 2014, 18:47 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqegxa386m.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <53D15188.2010209@gmail.com>

Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@gmail.com> writes:

> For core the only test failing was xfuncname vs funcname,

Being a little pessimistic: there may be other cases where the hashtable magically gives the right order for existing tests, but that would fail for untested use-cases.

But I can't think of any such case.

Show 6 quoted lines

> so the situation is not as bad as you think. One course of action
> would be leave git_config() as it is, so that third party apps
> may not be broken. Provide a function like git_config_cache(),
> then rename all the git_config() calls in core to git_config_cache(),
> fallback to git_config() where it is not applicable (for example,
> git config -l).

I think Junio's point about "git config -l" is correct: we should just keep git_config_raw there.

OTOH, renaming git_config to git_config_cache seems a lot of code churn, so I'd keep the name git_config. Perhaps git_config_raw is no longer a good name and it could be called git_config_ordered.

If we keep one call to git_config_raw there, then maybe we can use it for xfuncname/funcname too, and keep the behavior unchanged.

> Also can you name any third party apps that use the git_config()
> system on which I can test the patches.

There are probably tons of. I can think of git-multimail.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/