Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
I'm not sure it makes sense to do so. I can see how:
[section.SUBSECTION]
and
[section.subsection]
should be merged. But isn't:
[section "SUBSECTION"]
conceptually a different section entirely?
I still recall getting scolded by Linus after writing [sec.tion]; this was
way back when he was still active on this list. I essentially was told
that [sec "tion"] is _the_ only supported way, and [sec.tion] may work but
it purely does by accident, not by design.
Do we still even list the bogus [section.SUBSECTION] syntax anywhere in
our docs? If so, we should remove them and if not we simply just should
deprecate the code to read such input.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:32:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I'm not sure it makes sense to do so. I can see how:
[section.SUBSECTION]
and
[section.subsection]
should be merged. But isn't:
[section "SUBSECTION"]
conceptually a different section entirely?
I still recall getting scolded by Linus after writing [sec.tion]; this was
way back when he was still active on this list. I essentially was told
that [sec "tion"] is _the_ only supported way, and [sec.tion] may work but
it purely does by accident, not by design.
Hmm. It is a little weird that color.branch.local would have to be
spelled:
[color "branch"]
local = blue
and that the "branch" must be case-sensitive.
But then, that wouldn't be my first complaint about our config syntax,
which sort of pretends to be hierarchical (with the dot-syntax) but
isn't really. E.g., I'd really much rather it be spelled:
[color]
branch.local = blue
Do we still even list the bogus [section.SUBSECTION] syntax anywhere in
our docs? If so, we should remove them and if not we simply just should
deprecate the code to read such input.
It's in Documentation/config.txt. It seems to blame to e136f33
(Documentation/config.txt: Document config file syntax better,
2007-01-22).
-Peff