From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Todd Zullinger <tmz@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>,
"SZEDER Gábor" <szeder.dev@gmail.com>,
"Eric Sunshine" <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] completion.commands does not remove multiple commands
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 18:08:21 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190301230821.GA16294@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190301221551.GD31362@zaya.teonanacatl.net>
On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 05:15:51PM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Hmm. The comments in list_cmds_by_config() made me wonder
> if not using a local repo config was intentional:
>
> /*
> * There's no actual repository setup at this point (and even
> * if there is, we don't really care; only global config
> * matters). If we accidentally set up a repository, it's ok
> * too since the caller (git --list-cmds=) should exit shortly
> * anyway.
> */
Well, let's see what Duy says. :)
I've never used completion.commands myself, but it seems reasonable that
somebody might want different completion in different repos (e.g., if
they never use "mergetool" in one repo, but do in another).
> Is the cost of setting up a repository something which might
> noticeably slow down interactive completion? In my testing
> today I haven't felt it, but I have loads of memory on this
> system.
I'd doubt it. It is a few syscalls (and might have to walk up the
filesystem if you're not actually in a repository), but it's something
that basically every Git process does, and I don't think it's ever been
noticeable.
> I did apply your change and that allows the test to use
> test_config() rather than test_config_global(). The full
> test suite passes, so the change doesn't trigger any new
> issues we have covered by a test, at least.
>
> If we wanted to respect local configs, how does this look?
Looks good, with two minor commit message nits:
> -- 8< --
> From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> Subject: [PATCH] git: read local config in --list-cmds
>
> Normally code that is checking config before we've decide to do
s/decide/&d/
> setup_git_directory() would use read_early_config(), which uses
> discover_git_directory() to tentatively see if we're in a repo,
> and if so to add it to the config sequence.
>
> But list_cmds() uses the caching configset mechanism and
> (rightly) does not use read_early_config(), because it has no
> idea if it's being called early.
I'd say "mechanism _which_ rightly does not use read_early_config..." to
make it clear we're talking about configset, not list_cmds().
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-01 23:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-28 22:31 [BUG] completion.commands does not remove multiple commands Todd Zullinger
2019-02-28 23:05 ` Jeff King
2019-03-01 17:34 ` Todd Zullinger
2019-03-01 18:30 ` Jeff King
2019-03-01 22:15 ` Todd Zullinger
2019-03-01 23:08 ` Jeff King [this message]
2019-03-02 1:08 ` Duy Nguyen
2019-03-02 1:18 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-03-02 2:40 ` Todd Zullinger
2019-03-02 4:07 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-03-03 1:34 ` Todd Zullinger
2019-03-03 17:06 ` Jeff King
2019-03-01 17:34 ` [PATCH 1/3] doc: note config file restrictions for completion.commands Todd Zullinger
2019-03-17 13:12 ` Duy Nguyen
2019-03-17 18:16 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] completion.commands: fix multiple command removals Todd Zullinger
2019-03-17 18:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] git: read local config in --list-cmds Todd Zullinger
2019-03-18 9:41 ` Duy Nguyen
2019-03-20 18:03 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] completion.commands: fix multiple command removals Todd Zullinger
2019-03-21 2:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-03-21 17:18 ` Todd Zullinger
2019-03-21 9:45 ` Duy Nguyen
2019-03-20 18:03 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] git: read local config in --list-cmds Todd Zullinger
2019-03-20 18:03 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] t9902: test multiple removals via completion.commands Todd Zullinger
2019-03-20 18:03 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] completion: fix multiple command removals Todd Zullinger
2019-03-20 18:03 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] completion: use __git when calling --list-cmds Todd Zullinger
2019-03-17 18:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] t9902: test multiple removals via completion.commands Todd Zullinger
2019-03-17 18:16 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] completion: fix multiple command removals Todd Zullinger
2019-03-17 18:16 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] completion: use __git when calling --list-cmds Todd Zullinger
2019-03-01 17:34 ` [PATCH 2/3] t9902: test multiple removals via completion.commands Todd Zullinger
2019-03-01 18:22 ` Eric Sunshine
2019-03-01 20:50 ` SZEDER Gábor
2019-03-01 21:56 ` Todd Zullinger
2019-03-01 17:34 ` [PATCH 3/3] completion: fix multiple command removals Todd Zullinger
2019-03-01 18:16 ` Jeff King
2019-02-28 23:05 ` [BUG] completion.commands does not remove multiple commands SZEDER Gábor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190301230821.GA16294@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
--cc=szeder.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=tmz@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).