> On Jun 17, 2017, at 01:01, Yuya Nishihara <y...@tcha.org> wrote: > >>> I have no idea how we should process values which are only set in untrusted >>> config. Using hasconfig(untrusted=True) might be a bit safer, but there >>> would >>> still be inconsistency. >> >> I thought untrusted was the default? Or do you just want it explicit? > > untrusted is False by default. I think this and the repo config problems can > be mitigated by not setting tweaked values to _ocfg. > > if not tcfg.hasitem(section, name): > tcfg.set(section, name, value, "<tweakdefaults>") > if not ucfg.hasitem(section, name): > ucfg.set(section, name, value, "<tweakdefaults>") > fixconfig()
Oh, I see the problem now. I'm not sure how to address that. It was intentional that tweakdefaults is only respected if it's a trusted config entry, so all its items can be treated as trusted. I think your fix sounds reasonable for the setting of the config items. Should I roll a v3 that moves the tweakdefaults() call to dispatch and make it work this way instead of on (ab)using ui.setconfig? Thanks! Augie _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
