Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> That is, would a shell script ever want to say "what is the value of
> this config variable for url $X"? Certainly our test scripts want to,
> and having a test-* program covers that, but might user scripts want to
> do the same? Or even to introduce its own URL-matched config options?
> How hard would it be to convert the "-c" option of test-url-normalize
> into something like:
> git config --file=foo --url http noepsv $URL
> which would look for http.$URL.noepsv matches.
>> +#if LIBCURL_VERSION_NUM >= 0x070903
>> + else if (!strcmp("sslkey", opt_lc.buf))
>> + printf("%s\n", ssl_key);
>> +#if LIBCURL_VERSION_NUM >= 0x070908
>> + else if (!strcmp("sslcapath", opt_lc.buf))
>> + printf("%s\n", ssl_capath);
> Do we need to have the complete list of options here, including curl
> version limitations? It seems like this will eventually get out of date
> with the list of options. Would it be sufficient to test just one (or
> even just handle a fake "http.$URL.foo" variable)?
Yeah, and that will be in line with "git config --url" direction.
Another thing we may want to consider is to see if we can
restructure the http_options interface a bit, so that the caller can
be agonistic to the actual meaning of the key. For example,
"git config --url http notknownyet $URL"
may want to be able to show the value for http.<pattern>.notknownyet
for the most matching <pattern> for a given $URL, without knowing
what the variable means, just like any other configuration that is
queried via the "git config" program. The caller may want to pass
further type information like --bool, --int and --path as needed.
>> +#define url_normalize(u) http_options_url_normalize(u)
> Does this macro do anything besides shorten the name? Is the extra
> level of indirection to the reader worth it?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html