On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 21:59:28 -0400, Augie Fackler wrote: > > > 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 agree it's probably okay to ignore an untrusted tweakdefaults option. > 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? Not using setconfig() sounds nice, too. _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
