Web lists-archives.com

Re: git silently ignores include directive with single quotes

Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> I think that's syntactically invalid. At any rate, there are clearly
> three options for setting a bit:
>   1. In the section header (+include, or Ævar's includeIf suggestion).
>   2. In another key (which looks pretty clean, but does introduce
>      ordering constraints).
>   3. In the key name (maybePath or similar).
> I don't have a huge preference between them.

What's the longer term goal for the endgame?  Is it acceptable that
include.path will stay to be "optional include" for compatibility
with users' existing configuration files, and include.requiredpath
or similar gets introduced to allow people who want to get warned?
Or do we want the usual multi-step deprecation dance where the first
phase introduces include.maybepath and include.path starts warning
against missing one, encouraging it to be rewritten to maybepath?

I have mild preference against #2, as I suspect that the ordering
constraints makes it harder to understand to end users.  Between #1
and #3, there wouldn't be much difference, whether the endgame is
"add a stricter variant that is opt in" or "migrate to a stricter