Re: [PATCH 0/8] fix git-config with duplicate variable entries

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

quoted

It fails a few tests in t1300, but it looks like those tests are testing
for the behavior we have identified as wrong, and should be fixed.

I think this patch looks good.

Thanks. It had a few minor flaws (like a memory leak). I fixed those,
updated the tests, and split it out into a few more readable commits. In
the process, I managed to uncover and fix a few other memory leaks in
the area. I think this version is much more readable, and writing the
rationale for patch 7 convinced me that it's the right thing to do.
Another round of review would be appreciated.

  [1/8]: t1300: style updates
  [2/8]: t1300: remove redundant test
  [3/8]: t1300: test "git config --get-all" more thoroughly
  [4/8]: git-config: remove memory leak of key regexp
  [5/8]: git-config: fix regexp memory leaks on error conditions
  [6/8]: git-config: collect values instead of immediately printing
  [7/8]: git-config: do not complain about duplicate entries
  [8/8]: git-config: use git_config_with_options

For those just joining us, the interesting bit is patch 7, which fixes
some inconsistencies between the "git-config" tool and how the internal
config callbacks work.

The way for the Porcelain scripts to mimick the internal "last one
wins" has been to grab values out of --get-all and do the "last one
wins" themselves, and I agree that a mode that frees them from
having to worry about it is a good *addition*.  I would even say
that if we were designing "git config" plumbing without existing
users, it would be the only sensible behaviour for "--get".

But "git config --get" users have been promised to get errors on
duplicate values so far, so I have to say this needs to come with a
big red sign about API breakage.

I would feel safer to introduce --get-one or something now, and
worry about migration as a separate step.