From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FE5C35247 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:01:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB57C214AF for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:01:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="xUng5pgi" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727122AbgBETBG (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:06 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:53509 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727104AbgBETBG (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:06 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB762447DC; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=Xpva/Ch3OD5mNYWoRaIWofzNv8s=; b=xUng5p giRFhjZxh06Y55JQi7dkXYNYQkFOoE7R1tFgP2M3sjGnrdhMrSKWQ8DmbIfsEWy/ nXdn7bJe8dTWvX9GJ46Mnu9hjOTHgFEv5q911hCwsPXQG2ZWBB34uX6/p9DDJfsj 6IjUZAloiJNf29kxt73aY0HyIW9Ki84WRkTAw= 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=IhgexJWXjuAOc5JeZQee3LMDihjeXtl2 JPag2pMhvyPQKBcLzNoDmmTsgH/oM6paQ3/v30GRJP1Mim/z/DlBGW3WSwZRcxk5 bYTUnJl1GGUcRQXvHRISvcqOHVFI+Na5EdrErHIg3HzhWbiJ4InZyGw+mwNXDLG3 jWPhHZCKkEU= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8539447DB; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:03 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D7F6447D7; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:01:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Matt Rogers Cc: Bert Wesarg , Matthew Rogers via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] config: add '--show-scope' to print the scope of a config value References: <8ede2f21-46a8-b95f-6425-c0ee54abdad6@googlemail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 11:01:00 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Matt Rogers's message of "Wed, 29 Jan 2020 18:03:34 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DA720594-4849-11EA-9C6B-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Matt Rogers writes: >> for clarity, I think this patch should be split up further. >> >> For example: >> >> - moving an enum and adding a new entry should be avoided > > As far as adding a new entry, that could probably be done in a separate patch. > The submodule scoping is correct (mostly so config options that come from > submodule blobs have a sane value to set the new scope field of > git_config_source), but moving it is unavoidable as I'd either have to move > config_scope or git_config_source for this patch to work, and moving > git_config_source seemed like a ton more work > >> - does the changes to '/config.c' fix something? > > Another thing, that in hindsight could probably be split out. The other changes > do fix the fact that previously recursive calls to do_git_config_sequence() > would blow awway the current_parsing_scope information for higher level callers. > This is not super common, but does occur when --show-scope is used with the > --blob option. > >> - exposing config_scope_name should have been done before PATCH 4/6 already > > If that's better/more convenient, I don't have a problem breaking that > out and moving > it there. Alright. Thanks for another round of review.