Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] config: learn the "hostname:" includeIf condition
From: Taylor Blau <hidden>
Date: 2024-03-16 16:00:39
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 12:19:44PM +0100, Ignacio Encinas Rubio wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On 16/3/24 7:57, Jeff King wrote:quoted
On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 07:18:28PM +0100, Ignacio Encinas wrote:quoted
diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt index e3a74dd1c19d..9a22fd260935 100644 --- a/Documentation/config.txt +++ b/Documentation/config.txt@@ -186,6 +186,11 @@ As for the naming of this keyword, it is for forwards compatibility with a naming scheme that supports more variable-based include conditions, but currently Git only supports the exact keyword described above. +`hostname`:: + The data that follows the keyword `hostname:` is taken to be a + pattern with standard globbing wildcards. If the current + hostname matches the pattern, the include condition is met.Do we need to define "hostname" in more detail here? Specifically, I'm wondering whether the result will be a FQDN or not (i.e., the output of "hostname" vs "hostname -f"). Looking at the code I think it will just be the short name returned. That's probably OK, but it may be worth documenting.Thanks for pointing it out. I agree that it should be further clarified. Indeed, I was referring to the short name reported by gethostname(2), which should agree with "hostname". What do you think aboutdiff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt index 9a22fd260935..268a9fab7be0 100644 --- a/Documentation/config.txt +++ b/Documentation/config.txt@@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ but currently Git only supports the exact keyword described above. `hostname`:: The data that follows the keyword `hostname:` is taken to be a pattern with standard globbing wildcards. If the current - hostname matches the pattern, the include condition is met. + hostname (output of gethostname(2)) matches the
Hmm. gethostname(2)'s manual page isn't overly specific on the details here, either. I admittedly don't love the idea of documenting this implementation detail (that is, that we are calling gethostname() and using its output to compare against). I think it's fine to say instead, "the short hostname", and leave it at that. Alternatively, you could say "If the machine's short hostname (as opposed to a fully-qualified hostname, as returned by `hostname -f`) matches the pattern [...]". I think I have a vague preference towards the latter. Thanks, Taylor