[PATCH] Support remote access to (some) "hgrc" parameters

[Peter Arrenbrecht]

> Is there any convention for absolute parameter names?  For example,
> what is the full name of the "bar" parameter here:
>
>     [foo]
>     bar = baz
>
> ?  Maybe "foo.bar"?

Consider

  [foo.bar]
  baz = 1
  [foo]
  bar.baz = 1

So I'd rather go for

  [publish]
  foo]bar.baz =
  foo.bar]baz =

Admittedly ugly, but less ambiguous I think.
-peo

On Jan 9, 2008 4:19 PM, Glenn Ammons <ammons at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> "Peter Arrenbrecht" <peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Jan 9, 2008 9:01 AM, Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas at intevation.de> wrote:
> >> * Glenn Ammons <ammons at us.ibm.com> [20080108 21:15]:
> >> > "Thomas Arendsen Hein" <thomas at intevation.de> writes:
> >> > > * Glenn Ammons <ammons at us.ibm.com> [20080103 10:32]:
> >> > >> To answer your second question, there is no relation between
> >> > >> parameters in [public.foo] and those in [foo].  They are separate
> >> > >> sections.  The first one is accessible remotely.
> >> > >
> >> > > This sounds unfortunate as the public values are kind of useless
> >> > > then. I'd rather like to see e.g. a [public] section (or use the
> >> > > same name as the extension which provides this) and list whole
> >> > > sections or single parameters tp publish here.
> >
> > I second this. It would be a lot more flexible, and ensure that
> > publishing something is always a conscious act, not just a consequence
> > of a plugin requiring config information to be in a public.* section.
>
> OK.  I'll make the change and send a new patch soon, in which this
> will also be an extension.
>
> Is there any convention for absolute parameter names?  For example,
> what is the full name of the "bar" parameter here:
>
>     [foo]
>     bar = baz
>
> ?  Maybe "foo.bar"?
>
> Thanks.
> --glenn
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
>