From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com (sendmail.purelymail.com [34.202.193.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEB14146D5A for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2026 03:38:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782617889; cv=none; b=tzjIEZ5cm120Bhy1UsDm41tnPDIMlu7Rv0DkcQwjzpeTLA9LLEFUZUZLhxzIwlB4o6tX7dFoMrWhRwkqDlDe7+u2TsjlCCUk3Yrg+k0Y8TyhnGqjRpWqdgrmpQXVXpwJYiWAIfSPhi4hD6YBSUsTV5AKKnliot4+n66r9J/K0kk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782617889; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C6+sDjOcgr035yELybKls+u8Wp67BgdY7oBc+AF1j5U=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=kxJVR1MUyLjz8IidlTennn4vyj2L+hLJpSjQpz1Y/DyR7wWEAssMYH40+2TLxtThMuj1U3Q7IYXsA4kjm7Kh80jseX3UmT6iSHMwCGzctVV2w6jJQUVvrqav/H/pjJh/2gM8yqKBnx0nPJk6oZpzAWEOeoK9avj6wZU4b1oGzvs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=malon.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=malon.dev; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=malon.dev header.i=@malon.dev header.b=jlULeR0m; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b=ILG1UYGl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=malon.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=malon.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=malon.dev header.i=@malon.dev header.b="jlULeR0m"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b="ILG1UYGl" DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=jlULeR0mTAeSGb+27bn9NFuCfybECiXKe3rYJBYJdlgkrM5w2UXNnttDs2jIKf8VT1HRRH3KBSF61W93/iE1/4wbc0mgKrJY2c/UWyNHZyMGD5LOM/UfKI0wvdtpr9bWtUWIe1NXGquPEUL0J2/F7y9YoUA7y2qeOUFP4RFweJ5yvI9Ns4Sn+EJ1ZWDk8KIQZPuhqy4Wvln1BHoEhgs7CWGkRlpKgQn4qG629AgEPkhiRqqFBRhH1s+wnFJWdY9oyQrsdlHIiNrZVh/8PQQMj10vNitHKW0U+YdAolGUfxQKJ8hYERLhM/TohoxFmI+sq2YP79BVy69CC1QArQW8tg==; s=purelymail2; d=malon.dev; v=1; bh=C6+sDjOcgr035yELybKls+u8Wp67BgdY7oBc+AF1j5U=; h=Received:Date:Subject:From:To; DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=ILG1UYGldylIf7Jp1n0T4Nq5sa8ImkT7zOm5JzL6irMCr3zqwJTNja/gZ1hvW79+XOnBA6zsduDnP4D5TvVDMfsLhMGHgvp4/bTho0fN3i3afc1nFMe3GXaTOt44XabzKKkubrKQM7LKHbpKiVx00SjdBEHXAVp4guM7qiFwS0GzzRSD55SNoKERRH/WcoJr5DHvdCPHf5QSnuuFWchrFlIBgEtSlcRWuPvsqublMcm4wrOlBqYt9BwKJGoxSJm++I7zpSQzpfngqTyn5O7dCfJw1dsW16jx3gI+0DnzkMWFvgwRU2/9MqV1vMIo1xpUnp0wfuTOH/LkjweFjahGRQ==; s=purelymail2; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=C6+sDjOcgr035yELybKls+u8Wp67BgdY7oBc+AF1j5U=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Date:Subject:From:To; Feedback-ID: 599969:32685:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: git@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id 300401963; (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Sun, 28 Jun 2026 03:38:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:38:00 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] environment: move excludes_file into repo_config_values Content-Language: en-US From: Tian Yuchen To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, cirnovskyv@gmail.com, szeder.dev@gmail.com, Christian Couder , Ayush Chandekar , Olamide Caleb Bello References: <20260626075037.532164-1-cat@malon.dev> <20260627160813.1074201-1-cat@malon.dev> <20260627160813.1074201-2-cat@malon.dev> <04d1a7d5-ef83-4728-b816-5cdf1cb4aa25@malon.dev> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/28/26 11:19, Tian Yuchen wrote: > Let it be noticed by repo_config_values() function to > catch offending callers for now, and once the codebase becomes ready > to use one repo_config_values per repository, this function does not > have to change. And > Wouldn't we rather want to try to be more strict and say > > if (!repo || !repo->initialized) > BUG("repo must be an initialied repository"); > > here? Aren't all the callers of this function supposed to be > dealing with an already initialized repository? In my opinion, these two suggestions are not entirely consistent, and I think we need to determine the most appropriate approach. Regards, yuchen