Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes: > Johannes Schindelin <[email protected]> writes: > >> That leaves the "putty" case in handle_ssh_variant(), does it not? Was it >> not your specific objection that that is the case? > > Yup, you can remove that while you reroll. > >> No worries, I will let this simmer for a while. Your fixup has a lot of >> duplicated code (so much for maintainability as an important goal... ;-)) >> and I will have to think about it. My immediate thinking is to *not* >> duplicate code,... > > You need to realize that the namespaces of the configuration and the > command names are distinct. There is no code duplication.
To explain this a bit, there is no reason why allowed values for SSH_VARIANT must be "putty" and "tortoiseplink". An alternative design could be "port_option=-p,needs_batch=yes" and it may be more logical and futureproof if a variant of tortoiseplink decides to use "-p" instead of "-P" and still require "-batch". Prematurely attempting to share code, only because the current vocabularies for two distinct concepts happen to overlap, is not de-duplicating the code for maintainability. It is adding unnecessary work other people need to do in the future when they want to extend the system.
