Re: [PATCH/RFC] Hacky version of a glob() driven config include

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

> This is not ready for inclusion in anything. Commiting for RFC on
> whether this way of doing it is sane in theory.

I think this is a good idea at least in theory.
 
> Known bugs:
> 
>   * Breaks the model of being able to *set* config values. That
>     doesn't work for the included files. Maybe not a bug.

Errr... do I understand correctly that it simply means that you are
not able to set config values that came from included files, in
included files?

This is quite serious limitation.

> 
>   * Errors in the git_config_from_file() call in glob_include_config()
>     aren't passed upwards.

Hmmm...

> 
>   * It relies on the GNU GLOB_TILDE extension with no
>     alternative. That can be done by calling getenv("HOME") and
>     s/~/$home/.

"git config --path <variable>" expands leading '~' to $HOME, and ~user
to home directory of given user.  Why not use this?

> 
>   * The whole bit with saving/restoring global state for config
>     inclusion is evil, but then again so is the global state.

Why not encapsulate those global variables in a struct, passed to
appropriate functions, with a global variable holding an instance of
such struct (IIRC similarly to what is done for "the_index").

> 
>   * We don't check for recursion. But Git gives up eventually after
>     after spewing a *lot* of duplicate entry errors. Not sure how to
>     do this sanely w/symlinks.

The alternates mechanism has some depth limit; why not use it also for
config file inclusion?  The machanism is quite similar...

> 
> Not-signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>

You can simply do not add Signed-off-by for an RFC patch...

> ---
> 
> > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 07:50, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote:
> > > Isn't it better to have a way to include files instead?
> >
> > Probably yes. Programs like Apache HTTPD, rsyslog and others just use
> > ${foo}conf.d by convention by supporting config inclusion.
> 
> Here's an evil implementation of this. I know the code is horrid &
> buggy (see above). But is the general idea sane. I thought it would be
> better to submit this for comments before I went further with it.
> 
>  config.c               |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  t/t1300-repo-config.sh |   43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

No documentation.
 
[...]
> diff --git a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> index f11f98c..4df6658 100755
> --- a/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> +++ b/t/t1300-repo-config.sh
> @@ -824,4 +824,47 @@ test_expect_success 'check split_cmdline return' "
>  	test_must_fail git merge master
>  	"
>  
> +cat > .git/config << EOF
> +[some]
> +	variable = blah
> +[voodoo]
> +	include = .git/more_config_*
> +EOF

I don't like this syntax.

First, it forces git-config to hide all 'include' keys.  I think there
might be some legitimate <section>.include config variables (perhaps
outside git-core); with this patch they are impossible.


Second, I guess that the section name has absolutely no meaning here.
If included config file has section.key config variable, i.e.:

  [section]
        key = value

the variable in master config file (visible by git-config) would not
be voodoo.section.key.


Third, what happens with the sections in master config file?  If I
have the following in .git/config

  [voodoo]
        var1 = val1
        include = .git/more_config
        var2 = val2

and the .git/more_config has

  [foo]
        bar = baz

would "git config --list" see 'voodoo.var2' (i.e. sections in included
file does not change parsing of master file), or would it see
'foo.var2'?


I would propose

  include .git/more_config_*

if not for the fast that it would trip older git.  Perhaps

  [include ".git/more_config_*"]

or

  [include .git/more_config_*]

or

  ## include ".git/more_config_*"

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git