>On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Will this not conflict with folks that supply their own gitconfig?

> You mean people that provide their own ETC_GITCONFIG? If you mean
distributions, their packaging would override /etc/gitconfig, if you
mean people that have already a /etc/gitconfig, packaging systems
usually save the old one so they can solve the conflict manually (e.g.
/etc/gitconfig.pacsave). So no, it would not conflict.

Yuck. Yes, that one. I package my own /etc/gitconfig (as we have long 
advertised as the "way to do it") and asking users to manually fix up thousands 
of machines is a bad idea. 

Yes, thousands.  We're much past 30,000 cores at the moment. 

>> I like the idea. Docs?  Also, should this not be done in the C side so that 
>> we don't waste time reading the config, and also prevent users from 
>> overriding these?

> But we want them to be easily readable, and possibly allow
distributions to easily modify them.

In that case I take it back -- I dont like that approach.  We want consistency, 
not divergence. This encourages the former. 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git 
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to