From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: BUG: 'error: invalid key: pager.show_ref' on 'git show_ref' Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 23:52:20 -0500 Message-ID: <20150207045219.GA15548@peff.net> References: <20150206124528.GA18859@inner.h.apk.li> <20150206193313.GA4220@peff.net> <20150206203716.GA10857@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Andreas Krey , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 07 05:52:34 2015 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 1YJxNh-0003eJ-UC for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 05:52:34 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751517AbbBGEwX (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2015 23:52:23 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:46230 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751286AbbBGEwW (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2015 23:52:22 -0500 Received: (qmail 29824 invoked by uid 102); 7 Feb 2015 04:52:22 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:52:22 -0600 Received: (qmail 14385 invoked by uid 107); 7 Feb 2015 04:52:23 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 23:52:23 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 23:52:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 02:27:31PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > A list of enum-like values where we are OK confining the names to the > > alnums is OK to use as an unbounded set of key values. Just like we have > > color.branch.*, we just pick a name within that syntax for any new > > values we add (and that is not even a burden; alnum names are what we > > would have picked anyway). > > I would say that color.branch. names are very different from > subcommand names. The latter is exposed to the end users who do not > have to know that they can be used and must be usable as config > keys. Yeah, again, sorry if I wasn't clear. That was the same contrast I was making. Of the examples given in this thread, color.branch. and fsck.* names are in one boat ("OK to give them configuration-friendly names, they are just a list") and arbitrary commands are in another. -Peff