Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 12:01:44PM +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>> > If we had the keys in-memory, we could reverse this: config code asks
>> > for keys it cares about, and we can do an optimized lookup (binary
>> > search, hash, etc).
>> I'm actually dreaming of a system where a configuration variable could
>> be "declared" in Git's source code, with associated type (list/single
>> value, boolean/string/path/...), default value and documentation (and
>> then Documentation/config.txt could become a generated file). One could
>> imagine a lot of possibilities like
> Yes, I think something like that would be very nice. ...
>> Migrating the whole code to such system would take time, but creating
>> the system and applying it to a few examples might be feasible as a GSoC
> Agreed, as long as we have enough examples to feel confident that the
> infrastructure is sufficient.
I agree that it would give us a lot of enhancement opportunities if
we had a central catalog of what the supported configuration
variables are and what semantics (e.g. type, multi-value-ness, etc.)
One thing we need to be careful about is that we still must support
random configuration items that git-core does not care about at all
but scripts (and future versions of git-core) read off of, though.
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