From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100451F953 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 23:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S244233AbhLMXhQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 18:37:16 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56164 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241127AbhLMXhP (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2021 18:37:15 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-x549.google.com (mail-pg1-x549.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::549]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9975BC061574 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:37:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x549.google.com with SMTP id j3-20020a634a43000000b00325af3ab5f0so9745147pgl.11 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:37:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:from:to :cc; bh=tmPuHSeJtyL7wVrkKuAX3unlns+NKCfAkaq6ZKRtA7o=; b=OEV5PjZJrXydTU7h/owHgxrdB4dctkm56bQRUz0KG2jNuC7N5l96ttVOR/pSar0X/m jrChTbAyOiIugbX6prRBm7826RAYY01KAZz0gHOLNqxWUCH5p9/DLIzte+SVivh0AVC+ aAel9teeJKS0y34GMNRcbY8jKbh2NAXnKumAtArr2OnUPb03G4jUNbvqgd4TqZNhEJ+w lNI3SGtDno6Rc/gQNNPxV6yMmFcG9rMItLlRGi4jC4xKK/dPfeWR4wAWmQGUWiyHCk9N U2kDICF7RAojGWXC4H+SOG2AjNoxNl2oy4JCe5w6SRIcR6749Jb/6PGh5YmV6Lsm7+bL 74Yg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=tmPuHSeJtyL7wVrkKuAX3unlns+NKCfAkaq6ZKRtA7o=; b=dPop6EYTVaf0rd1SKjCJla7kOIv2VbB3Y1o1RTHdV8i7kpjyURkzaXCBOegZjAqNTl G6klBDzSx2cx3tPafVE4dgnyUlGORa5AdnzyFWexHcXbl5vfzPZqLnucBHS/TGzo+z/S ZOrYCGdAYmCoYyZ+8F1sHXowiuQpKkEq5cEotpydmw211y0NGdYB3HRHikjtkra62qIF VvCbxOt42DDKsmxPXCBHldREWfx9R2f/7v43UROxCGDxCpJS8214C4kTvniNAlBMsvbA 5zQuhLEvjyVN3hT28ObaVN9F72pMbNIEx7TJFKtckRuLLUilePy5rk1sn7Okz4Ka5qbo 1HFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533b+0KAW1GcHM0S7WZwNw8iFzra2bCR02z/ah8sfsY4CXPU+PQC S+AVSoxoxbge2NvcOYdO3iCqkt+Xp7DSwl8PK7Ap X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyt5FFOszgMzpk5lVTq5uNq+pxbItXyQyv6dXw7lsfa2XHEbhQnSgM0wHsvBycWL5WjM7zf2P88L/EXM/QdZVdw X-Received: from twelve4.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:24:72f4:c0a8:437a]) (user=jonathantanmy job=sendgmr) by 2002:a05:6a00:cc9:b0:49f:b439:8930 with SMTP id b9-20020a056a000cc900b0049fb4398930mr1202794pfv.86.1639438635074; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:37:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:37:12 -0800 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20211213233712.774546-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1.173.g76aa8bc2d0-goog Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] config: include file if remote URL matches a glob From: Jonathan Tan To: gitster@pobox.com Cc: jonathantanmy@google.com, chooglen@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Perhaps it is easier to approach it from the viewpoint of a new > user who is unfamiliar with what you designed. > > I would imagine that most users would find it natural if a single > pass precedure read and processed lines as it sees them. > > That is, when the first includeif is evaluated, we have seen only > 'remote.a.url' whose value is 'bar', so the condition does not hold. > and then when the second includeif is evaluated, it gets included, > and we read 'bar'. But that is wher configuration reading ends; > remote.b.url is not asked for after we process the second includeif > til the end. > > If you explain > > (1) why such a simplest design would not work well; and > > (2) how the actual design is different from that simplest design to > overcome it. > > it would be easier to grok? > > Thanks. Thanks - this sounds like a good approach. I'll try this.