Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] gpg-interface: introduce new config to select per gpg format program

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:56:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> >> I'm okay with us forcing "openpgp".  That seems sane enough for now, and
>> >> if people scream loudly, we can loosen it.
>> >
>> > Well, I specifically meant "are you sure subsections like this are a
>> > good idea". But it seems like people think so?
>> 
>> I admit that I did not even consider that there may be better tool
>> than using subsections to record this information.  What are the
>> possibilities you have in mind (if you have one)?
>
> I don't think there is another tool except two-level options, like
> "gpg.openpgpprogram" and "gpg.x509program".
>
> Although those are a bit ugly, I just wondered if they might make things
> simpler, since AFAIK we are not planning to add more config options
> here. Like gpg.x509.someotherflag, nor gpg.someothertool.program.
>
> Of course one reason _for_ the tri-level is that we might one day add
> gpg.x509.someotherflag, and this gives us room to do it with less
> awkwardness (i.e., a proliferation of gpg.x509someflag options).