From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC81420282 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:42:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752294AbdFMLm6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:42:58 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:39013 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752033AbdFMLm5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:42:57 -0400 Received: (qmail 30522 invoked by uid 109); 13 Jun 2017 11:42:56 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:42:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 23749 invoked by uid 111); 13 Jun 2017 11:42:58 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:42:58 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:42:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:42:54 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] alias_lookup(): optionally return top-level directory Message-ID: <20170613114254.oo6r6oqwtchvjuim@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170610101813.n26wmxcueicecptz@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > As you probably guessed, I had tried that first and then figured that if > > I needed to keep the config_key_is_valid() test anyway, I could just as > > well keep the strbuf around for later use. > > > > Will change the code, > > Alas, I won't change the code after all. > > It is really tempting to avoid the extra strbuf, but then the error > message would change from > > error: missing value for 'alias.br' > > to > > error: missing value for 'br' > > which is of course no good at all. > > And since I already have to keep that strbuf, I'll simply keep the > config_key_is_valid() guard, too (because why not). Oof, yeah, that is definitely worse. I'm fine with keeping both parts. -Peff