Re: [REQUEST 1/1] docs: update http.<url>.* options documentation

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:23:23PM -0700, Kyle J. McKay wrote:

> >IMHO, this would be more clear as a single item, like:
> >
> > . User name (e.g., `user` in `https://user@example.com/repo.git`). If
> >   the config key has a user name it must match the user name in the
> >   URL exactly. If the config key does not have a user name, that
> >   config key will match a URL with any user name (including none).
> 
> The only problem I have with a single item is what's the precedence?
> Does an exact user match have the same precedence as an any-user
> match?  That would seem to be implied by having them as the same item
> number.  Separating them would appear to make it clearer that an
> exact user match wins over an any user match, but if you have some
> alternate text as a suggestion for the single item that clears that
> up...  :)

Ah, I see your thinking now. You want to say "no username has less
precedence than some username, which has less precedence than a path",
so they are all elements of a single list.  My thinking was "username
has precedence less than path, and like a shorter path has less
precedence than a longer path, an empty username has less precedence
than a non-empty username".

I agree my suggested wording would need to mention that explicitly.
Like:

  . User name (e.g., `user` in `https://user@example.com/repo.git`). If
    the config key has a user name it must match the user name in the
    URL exactly. If the config key does not have a user name, that
    config key will match a URL with any user name (including none), but
    at lower precedence than a config key with a user name.

I can live with it either way, though. They are just two ways of
considering the same thing.

> I am considering this text to address that:
> 
> >All URLs are normalized (%-encodings are standardized, case-insensitive
> >parts are lowercased, `./` and `../` path components are resolved)
> >before
> >attempting any matching (the password part, if embedded in the URL,
> 
> but I'm not sure the extra verbiage makes it better.  I think it may
> just complicate the explanation unnecessarily?

Yeah, I think I agree. Let's leave it out.

-Peff