Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] config: store "git -c" variables using more robust format

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:55:48PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:16:46PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:27:01PM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

quoted

The previous commit added a new format for $GIT_CONFIG_PARAMETERS which
is able to robustly handle subsections with "=" in them. Let's start

It looks like this commit and 6 got flipped from the original ordering
(it's the "previous commit" talked about here). And indeed, running the
tests on the individual commits in this series shows that we fail at
this step (because we are writing the new format, but the reader is too
strict to accept it).

That doesn't matter to the end result, of course, but it hurts later
bisecting. Just flipping patches 5 and 6 makes it all work.

-Peff

Oops, yes. That always happens to me when I start using git-am(1). I see
that the patch series has been applied to "next" already, so does it
make any sense to resend with patches 5 and 6 flipped?

I recall saying that I'd "rebase -i" before merging it to "next".
Did I forget to do so?

Disecting 4ed03412 (Merge branch 'ps/config-env-pairs' into next,
2021-01-15), we see:

$ git log --oneline --reverse master..4ed03412^2 | cat -n
     1	b0812b6ac0 git: add `--super-prefix` to usage string
     2	ce81b1da23 config: add new way to pass config via `--config-env`
     3	13c44953fb quote: make sq_dequote_step() a public function
     4	b342ae61b3 config: extract function to parse config pairs
     5	f9dbb64fad config: parse more robust format in GIT_CONFIG_PARAMETERS
     6	1ff21c05ba config: store "git -c" variables using more robust format
     7	b9d147fb15 environment: make `getenv_safe()` a public function
     8	d8d77153ea config: allow specifying config entries via envvar pairs

The 5/8 that needs to come after 6/8 has title "store ... using more
rebust format" and that is the 6th patch in the series merged to
'next'.  The 6/8 that needs to come before that one was called
"parse more robust format" and it now appears as the 5th patch.

So it seems all is well?

Indeed, I missed your message about the interactive rebase. Thanks!

Patrick