Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] config: add conditional include

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:05:20AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I am not sure about "obviousness", but I agree that we do not know
> that "conditional include" would be the only thing we want for the
> second level for "include.path" directive.  "include-if.<cond>.path"
> is better for that reason.
> 
> I presume that you could still do
> 
> 	[include "if:gitdir=$path"]
> 		path = ...
> 
> i.e. design the second level to begin with a token that tells
> readers what it means (and assign "if:" token for "conditional
> include"), but I do not think it is worth it.

Yep, all true.

> I also imagine that
> 
> 	[include]
> 		condition = ...
> 		path = ...
> 
> is easier to read and write by end-users, but it probably is not
> feasible because it requires too invasive change to the current code
> to teach it to grok such construct.

I am against that as it introduces a dependency in the presence and
ordering between two config variables, which can yield some surprises.

> Between "include-if" and "includeIf", if people find the latter not
> too ugly, I'd prefer to keep it the way Duy posted.  Because of the
> way "include.path" and "include-if.<cond>.path" work, we can declare
> that they are not like ordinary configuration variable definition
> at all but are higher-level directives and that may be a sufficient
> justification to allow "-" in its name, though, if people find
> "includeIf" too ugly a name to live.

OK. I can live with includeIf.

-Peff