Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] branch: inherit tracking configs

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>,
	Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, chooglen@google.com,
	emilyshaffer@google.com, avarab@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] branch: inherit tracking configs
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:52:00 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq4k7k8cz3.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1638859949.git.steadmon@google.com> (Josh Steadmon's message of "Mon, 6 Dec 2021 23:12:06 -0800")

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> I've addressed feedback from V4. Since 2/3 reviewers seemed to (at least
> slightly) prefer handling multiple upstream branches in the existing
> tracking setup, I've gone that direction rather than repurposing the
> branch copy code. None of the other issues were controversial.
>
> In this version, I'd appreciate feedback mainly on patch 1:
> * Is the combination of `git_config_set_gently()` +
>   `git_config_set_multivar_gently() the best way to write multiple
>   config entries for the same key?

IIRC git_config_set_*() is Dscho's brainchild.  If he is available
to comment, it may be a valuable input.

> * Does the reorganization of the BRANCH_CONFIG_VERBOSE output make
>   things more readable, or less? Should I try to simplify the output
>   here so that we don't end up with so many translatable variants of the
>   same message?

Let me find time to take a look.

> Also, a question specifically for Junio: this will conflict with
> gc/branch-recurse-submodules; should I rebase on that, or wait till it
> hits next, or just ignore it for now?

Can you two work out the preferred plan, taking relative importance,
priority, and difficulty between the topics into account, and report
to us how you want to proceed and why you chose the route once you
are done?

Unless the plan you two come up with is outrageously bad, such a
decision by stakeholders would be far more acceptable by the
community than going by my gut feeling.  In short, I'd prefer
decentralization ;-)

Having said that, I think this one is a simpler topic that is closer
to become stable enough than the other one, so it could be that the
rebases want to go the other direction.

Thanks.