Tanay Abhra <tanay...@gmail.com> writes:

> For core the only test failing was xfuncname vs funcname,

Being a little pessimistic: there may be other cases where the hashtable
magically gives the right order for existing tests, but that would fail
for untested use-cases.

But I can't think of any such case.

> so the situation is not as bad as you think. One course of action
> would be leave git_config() as it is, so that third party apps
> may not be broken. Provide a function like git_config_cache(),
> then rename all the git_config() calls in core to git_config_cache(),
> fallback to git_config() where it is not applicable (for example,
> git config -l).

I think Junio's point about "git config -l" is correct: we should just
keep git_config_raw there.

OTOH, renaming git_config to git_config_cache seems a lot of code churn,
so I'd keep the name git_config. Perhaps git_config_raw is no longer a
good name and it could be called git_config_ordered.

If we keep one call to git_config_raw there, then maybe we can use it
for xfuncname/funcname too, and keep the behavior unchanged.

> Also can you name any third party apps that use the git_config()
> system on which I can test the patches.

There are probably tons of. I can think of git-multimail.

Matthieu Moy
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

Reply via email to