Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer.pl: improve config-file support

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:46:15 +0200
Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:56:52 +0200
> Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 12 May 2010 15:28:53 -0700
> > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 23:12 +0200, florian@mickler.org wrote:
> > > > This changes the syntax of the config-file introduced in the commit
> > > > "scripts/get_maintainer.pl: add .get_maintainer.conf default options
> > > > file".
> > > > Entries are now of the more commonly found form:
> > > > 	key = value
> > > > where keys are cmd-line arguments without the "--" prefixed.
> > > 
> > > I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about the
> > > .conf file format.
> > > 
> > > Another option which could be useful:  --noconf, don't read the file.
> > > 
> > > > as well as warn if unrecognized options are
> > > > specified.
> > > 
> > > The old approach does that as well.
> > 
> > True.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > +if (!GetOptions( \%prefs,
> > > 
> > > I think you don't need to repeat the options.
> > > Doesn't this work?
> > > 	if (!GetOptions(\%prefs)) {
> > > 	    die "$P: invalid argument - use --help if necessary\n";
> > > 
> > No, GetOpts::Long needs a special markup for parsing the cmdline
> > string, like =s for specifying that that option is accompanied by a
> > string value or the ! for specifying that it is a flag. 
> > Also there are aliases defined for config-options.
> > 
>
> Hi Andrew!
> 
> What's the status of this patch?
> Do you take it, or do you have an issue with it? This is a clear
> improvement in my opinion.
> 

(top-posting repaired)

Joe didn't sound very excited about it.

If we're going to do this, we should hurry up, please - it'd be silly
to introduce a config file and then change its format shortly
afterwards.