On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 06:11:08PM +0000, Keller, Jacob E wrote: > I personally prefer error out on options, even though it can make it a > bit more difficult, though as far as I know unknown fields simply warn > or are ignored. (ie: old versions of git just ignore unknown fields in > configuration).
Right, we _have_ to ignore unknown config options, because we specifically allow other programs built on git to store their config with us (and anyway, our callback style of parsing means that no single callback knows about all of the keys). In the past we have staked out particular areas of the namespace, though. E.g., the diff code said "I own all of color.diff.*, and if you put in something I don't understand, I'll complain". That ended up being annoying, and now we ignore slots we don't understand there. So old gits will always silently ignore tag.sort if they don't know about it, and we can't change that. The only thing we can change is: > It's possible we should warn instead though, so that older gits work > with new sorts that they don't understand. Right. I think other config variables in similar situations will barf. This is backwards-compatible as long as the new variables are a superset (i.e., we only add new understood values, never remove or change the meaning of existing values). It's just not forwards-compatible. > I am ok with warning but I don't know the best practice for how to warn > here instead of failing. Returning error causes a fatal "bad config" > message. Any thoughts? The simplest thing is ignoring the return from parse_sort_string and just calling "return 0". That will still say "error:", but continue on. If you really want it to say "warning:", I think you'll have to pass a flag into parse_sort_string. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. -Peff -- 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
