Hi Johannes,

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:58:30PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, 30 May 2019, Denton Liu wrote:

quoted

Currently, if a user wishes to have individual settings per branch, they
are required to manually keep track of the settings in their head and
manually set the options on the command-line or change the config at
each branch.

Teach config the "onbranch:" includeIf condition so that it can
conditionally include configuration files if the branch is checked out
in the current worktree.

What a coincidence. I actually wished for something like this, to have
branch-specific aliases.

However, I would need this to handle patterns (via `wildmatch()`?) rather
than branch names.

Do you mean that we should be able to match a branch by pattern? So, for
example, if we had

	[includeIf "onbranch:mas*"]

we'd match if we were on "master"?

quoted

I decided to go ahead and implement the includeIf onbranch semantics for
fun. For completeness, I'm sending it to the list but I'm not really
sure if this should get merged, since I don't really have a use-case for
this, especially if we go the branch-specific format-patch config route.

Another thing to note is that this change doesn't completely cover all
the use-cases that the branch-specific format-patch does. In particular,
if I run

	$ git checkout foo
	$ git format-patch master..bar

with the `format.bar.*`, we'd get bar-specific configs, whereas with
`includeIf "onbranch:bar"`, we'd fail to include bar-specific configs
and, more dangerously, we'd be including foo's configs.

I actually think that this is fine. "on branch" means that you are on the
specified branch, not that you merely mention the branch name on the
command-line (in which case there would be the ambiguity "did the user
mean `master` or `bar`?").

The reason why I brought this up as a use case was because currently,
when format-patch generates a cover letter, with the above, it'll use
bar's branch description to populate it even if "foo" is checked out. As
a result, when implementing the branch-specific format-patch stuff, I
wanted to make this consistent so that we wouldn't end up in a situation
where the cover letter has the branch's description but is missing its
Cc's.

Ciao,
Dscho