From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason at zx2c4.com (Jason A. Donenfeld) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 23:27:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Git-Config Parsing during scan-path In-Reply-To: <1349645027-22007-1-git-send-email-necoro@necoro.net> References: <1349645027-22007-1-git-send-email-necoro@necoro.net> Message-ID: Hi Ren?, I've merged these changes into a branch in the repo: http://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/log/?h=rn/gitconfig I'd like to mull over them for a few days and not to hastily merge them into master for a couple of reasons. - Currently the section and description tags are taken care of using gitweb.category and gitweb.description, just fine using these two commits in master: http://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/commit/?id=fc9181ff3d3ebbe0159871f6a49438e60bb17f58 http://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/commit/?id=b56be4ba3a942dd1978fe4bfecd9afc35aab0027 So one set of patches or the other does duplicate some functionality. - There are certain advantages of keeping with the gitweb.* namespace, as it promotes compatibility and unifies a web-oriented configuration namespace. "When things are in the gitweb area, it means they should work with webpages that use git for data." I'm not sure I like the idea of a general cgit namespace, and then cherry picking special gitweb.* items. - git_config_from_file should only be called once. This patch series duplicates the call. Things should be unified into one callback function. - The two patches listed above work with the gitolite default, which is nice. - I don't like having the uber gitolite-specific documentation in there. It seems like a general solution would be more optimal. On the other hand, since cgit is so commonly used alongside gitolite, we could creep gradually in this direction, thought I don't think this was ever Lars' intention. What are your thoughts? Jason