From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17E21FA21 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2017 00:47:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751412AbdJFAry (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:47:54 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:52952 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751083AbdJFAry (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:47:54 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9059397C5D; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:47:53 -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=qv0NnZdAxFhFGpt5vsFI11UhvxM=; b=GYL+V/ UwUqEJ+MtpSjbUB3w0k//uHQjSXSduBYs2sQ0PKEBSI00pcDiNDuKZLiee/ZUIGV g6X80wqAystuvhhAQI1LtXHNT2ZsKahwv2tDkdlkoiwweziEpK9SUmKbqQNyAEYg kZRSoaViBCqIMUjQ5g2Mwh8owpi5RjPCDxjfk= 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=tOEuSORX81VIyCY3Re21LHwgFOIDaWU2 FqtuShRU9iFUt0e2HFJdSkI7f9QwS4GOdgr0MCVHjD+BnxJXnt6SIxSbMTOjvQmr aqEAWkliufELcizNA3V+nmv2a1b24+Lzxq3szifc75bWeU8kl/vrZLFbu0Cjkqwh SrsQa0wqTk4= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8829597C5B; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04F2B97C59; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:47:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" , Git Mailing list Subject: Re: is it "core.excludesfile" or "core.excludesFile"? References: Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 09:47:51 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:32:16 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FC404ECA-AA2F-11E7-9DA0-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> >> more pedantic nitpickery, but the git source/docs seems to bounce >> all over the place as to which of those forms is the right one. >> opinions? > > In the code we use all lowercase to compare (any input is converted to > lowercase); > in the docs we try to come up with a sufficient cameLcase to not > confuse the user. > In tests, I don't know? Unless the test is about making sure that section.var and SecTion.Var are treated the same (and section.subsection.var and section.subSection.var are treated differently), it is preferrable to use multiWordSection.multiWordVar in tests for consistency and for documentation value.