On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:30 PM, David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>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")
You package /etc/gitconfig *outside* the git package? I don't see how
that could have been ever advertised as the way to do it.
> and asking users to manually fix up thousands of machines is a bad idea.
Users don't package /etc/gitconfig outside git.
>>> 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.
So you think we have more consistency right now? We don't even have a
predefined /etc/gitconfig, that creates more inconsistency, as
everybody's configs and aliases are very very different.
This patch would definitely make things more consistent.
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
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.