From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v5] tag: support configuring --sort via .gitconfig Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:01:03 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1405099447-27555-1-git-send-email-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <1405099447-27555-3-git-send-email-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> <20140711174628.GC7856@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140712011735.GB17349@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jacob Keller , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 13 19:01:17 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X6N9I-0007E9-AW for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:01:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754073AbaGMRBN (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:01:13 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:52747 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753968AbaGMRBL (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:01:11 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E6925E6D; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:00:53 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=EfcEwMfSQwOWmC13Md0yeBeSTOo=; b=xaLX0M qyvH5mwujU9hYsqWTlSol5A8bTUjK1FCOegyRauB0W49f7YhvE+rXbBA+3H6NzTk esiKPhWXyTb4X/T6nhDAbXjn4ZS02rY0bVDK+s8aN2+Uy5pTQzbi59FQBsLHyaQd jrj+lARlSul3MKN0iK1HxbLcbzYdl+NJErvBE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=oSzsnNRWjgnjqE7dG8t9weQfZCY4Xngz xxaZSuR1+mF9z5CNzD6FAHtdZtLl7PqeOSis+9pRi9xUD6wT3Ofl0/rWUSc7kKPd CvxwAamNtBeIz/2jfFm0OdSuzaD95aBgJslMSRd2Btubrc7sdvxyGlxdgLqbIwzl Anoog3b0CoE= Received: from pb-smtp0.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE2725E6C; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 891ED25E62; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:00:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20140712011735.GB17349@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:17:35 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3C553166-0AAF-11E4-ACA5-9903E9FBB39C-77302942!pb-smtp0.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 02:54:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > Yeah, we're quite inconsistent there. In some cases we silently ignore >> > something unknown (e.g., a color.diff.* slot that we do not understand), >> > but in most cases if it is a config key we understand but a value we do >> > not, we complain and die. >> >> Hm, that's bad---we've become less and less careful over time, >> perhaps? > > I don't think so. I think we've always been not-very-lenient with > parsing values. Two examples: > ... > So I do not think we have ever had a rule, but if we did, it is probably > "silently ignore unknown keys, complain on unknown values". Yeah, somehow I was mixing up these two cases fuzzily in my mind while responding. Rejecting unknown keys is bad, but we cannot be perfectly forward compatible nor behave sensibly on unknown values while issuing errors against known-to-be-bad values, so your rule above sounds like the most sensible thing to do.