Re: [PATCH] improve config-file support

From: Florian Mickler
Date: Fri May 21 2010 - 17:08:45 EST

On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:21:28 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 13:13 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:46:15 +0200
> > Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > What's the status of this patch?
> > > Do you take it, or do you have an issue with it? This is a clear
> > > improvement in my opinion.
> > Joe didn't sound very excited about it.
> > If we're going to do this, we should hurry up, please - it'd be silly
> > to introduce a config file and then change its format shortly
> > afterwards.
> If an ".ini" style config is used, I think it'd be better to
> put this stuff in .git/config under a proper section so that
> any checking style script (checkpatch, smatch, smpl, etc)
> has a standard place to put stuff.
> I think what I posted requires less overall work and doesn't
> need updating every time a new option is added, but overall
> the capability isn't all that necessary.

Feature-like it is the same. But in my opinion my solution with a
key=value approach (why .ini? where did you get that from?) is more
I've never seen this hacky thing where you put "--option" tokens in
a file in my life.
Of course, Joe's solution is short and to the point.
But i would consider it more "quick'n'dirty" than elegant.

As for the placement:
This has nothing to do with git, aside from using it as a _possible_
way to determine the maintainers. So I doubt that we should
mess with .git/config. If you want to go that road of a more general
solution, a common /scripts/ config-file would be more realistic.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at