On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:56:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I'm okay with us forcing "openpgp". That seems sane enough for now, and > >> if people scream loudly, we can loosen it. > > > > Well, I specifically meant "are you sure subsections like this are a > > good idea". But it seems like people think so? > > I admit that I did not even consider that there may be better tool > than using subsections to record this information. What are the > possibilities you have in mind (if you have one)?
I don't think there is another tool except two-level options, like "gpg.openpgpprogram" and "gpg.x509program". Although those are a bit ugly, I just wondered if they might make things simpler, since AFAIK we are not planning to add more config options here. Like gpg.x509.someotherflag, nor gpg.someothertool.program. Of course one reason _for_ the tri-level is that we might one day add gpg.x509.someotherflag, and this gives us room to do it with less awkwardness (i.e., a proliferation of gpg.x509someflag options). -Peff
