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: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072801F880 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 23:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728525AbgAIX3i (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:29:38 -0500 Received: from mail-vs1-f67.google.com ([209.85.217.67]:46530 "EHLO mail-vs1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725840AbgAIX3i (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:29:38 -0500 Received: by mail-vs1-f67.google.com with SMTP id t12so123452vso.13 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:29:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=84sYD9o0q9qYjTNbNKN2OsKOcB9FNQA3H4I0TmOrs+E=; b=E/HY0EJtN7spV2hn+1kdirWk7cOKzvqMjGw4trxKM1gZyPaahOyDQyB2yGAWqkAt4a CmOH3wW8Zgr3YFuUq7LELdQiCE6ToVBSGTrSqjX1iLVF9T+/uQUJlX+BxG/bQxYeHBBe ZM89vrHWRoEsPWG8Ez2x0k57RqOIxRrixW4dmdhKF65EYGi9bQt+NNcVL15uiDACHxJG 38GB0vD9IS9Afzlq9SfqOHYqUuEa9ztQcmRzlDgERLG8YH/gHlcb2dwcP4PdX6crKmnv tBoc1vWgP9BpghcyoTIGgfW5ZCQhNMlpGrW+A3NsCzV6qJWUo1fINivHx3uww90JYPyI 7oow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=84sYD9o0q9qYjTNbNKN2OsKOcB9FNQA3H4I0TmOrs+E=; b=eFN+o0Robn+DEs+6GVt9IJT94bP91LSkhMkcR4NIjjswnoh+7eoEC3QHD8tJzIXO6Y zWmoDrThso6onBQKv2kuV34B80VjFu3Jp70YJyMNII9dov8ggIN45c8z2yXYdFMfwivy nNU7hf+b3LnafKlimNxYD9dH/ioDUORuxiaQ6YfNnyOnXMY5MDac9fkS1S7W3EV8Nw3t 0pzv2Oyd0Tk2rvHmiiSHf/KBIPXRw4sTfYSHXEYnTxew5rfiqoNktwAnxLrJjDAVZkWN 4FPHnB+WSU0S0mWjw7r6rfsPvCytYyyF9IxZ80pD6l/cyxtCWv+e9Fe/AeYixTrfZnJq tv6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVXDaG8A7Wkx/rlN14N0+3SNG8VM8hdA9XB2A98Ov7rPMugHyFj sJtHJOY/S9labXCQRwTyJ3gk/+nxyG+IfxJUt2Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwQ62E1OEcDdvEmdDCXAOMSq4bO3UTopRAUPrGA2uaOoE89S91hhzhQQSwkjgNlqXKwLnP0uUi44DLg5HZdOUw= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f847:: with SMTP id b7mr141589vsp.40.1578612576995; Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:29:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Matt Rogers Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 18:29:25 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] config: fix config scope enum To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Matthew Rogers via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 2:06 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "Matthew Rogers via GitGitGadget" writes: > > > From: Matthew Rogers > > > > Previously when iterating through git config variables, worktree config > > and local config were both considered "CONFIG_SCOPE_REPO". This was > > never a problem before as no one had needed to differentiate between the > > two cases. > > Hmph, then "fix" on the title is a bit misleading, no? > > The enum may not have been as fine grained as you would have liked, > but if there was nothing broken, then we are doing this not to "fix" > anything. > I see where you're coming from, but I would definitely consider this a "fix" in that it's something that (as explained in the deleted comment) should have been this way from the start but was unnecessary as no one had a need for it yet. But I definitely wouldn't be against changing the phrasing to something like "clean up" or whatever your preferred wording would be. > A more important thing to explain would probably be why we > (i.e. those who propose this change, those who give favoriable > reviews to it, and those who accept it change to the system) would > want to see finer-grained classification. What do we expect to be > able to do with the resulting finer-grained set that we wouldn't be > able to with the original, and why is it a good thing? That is what > readers of the proposed log message of this change would want to > see, I would think. > This is really more prep for patch 4 later on in this series, as a user who ran the proposed '--show-scope' later on in the series would care what was "worktree" vs "local". Regardless, I think the two options I have would be to amend the commit message with that extra information or roll it together with patch 4