From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Roskin Subject: Re: Implementing branch attributes in git config Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 21:21:40 -0400 Message-ID: <1147051300.17371.32.camel@dv> References: <1147037659.25090.25.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , git X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 08 03:21:50 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FcuRX-0004SK-DC for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 03:21:47 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932242AbWEHBVo (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 May 2006 21:21:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932245AbWEHBVo (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 May 2006 21:21:44 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:36793 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932242AbWEHBVo (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 May 2006 21:21:44 -0400 Received: from proski by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FcuRT-0000zG-KL for git@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 21:21:43 -0400 Received: from proski by dv.roinet.com with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FcuRQ-0007yv-Sj; Sun, 07 May 2006 21:21:40 -0400 To: Johannes Schindelin In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 (2.6.1-3) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hello, Johannes! On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 03:05 +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > The ["blablabla"] syntax fails the is-it-obvious-what-this-does test. What > *is* wrong with the " for " syntax? IIRC it was even proposed by you, and > it happens to be backward compatible. Not trying to answer for Linus, here's my take. The "for" syntax is one more layer in the config hierarchy. Adding another layer is a more intrusive solution than relaxing the syntax of the existing elements without changing their semantic. git-repo-config is "for" agnostic. It doesn't parse "for" (as far as I know). "for" can be confusing in some contexts, or may force inversion of the hierarchy to make the config file more readable. How would you implement branch descriptions? See this: [branchdata] description = "netdev" for "Network device development" and this [branchdata] description = "Network device development" for "netdev" The later is closer to English. Or should we use the first approach and "is" instead of "for"? Now, how can I get a description for the "netdev" branch by one git-repo-config command, without pipes? -- Regards, Pavel Roskin