Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Aguilar wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:30 PM, David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com>
>> >>>On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> Will this not conflict with folks that supply their own
>> >>> You mean people that provide their own ETC_GITCONFIG? If you mean
>> >> distributions, their packaging would override /etc/gitconfig, if
>> >> mean people that have already a /etc/gitconfig, packaging systems
>> >> usually save the old one so they can solve the conflict manually
>> >> /etc/gitconfig.pacsave). So no, it would not conflict.
>> >> Yuck. Yes, that one. I package my own /etc/gitconfig (as we have
>> >advertised as the "way to do it")
>> >You package /etc/gitconfig *outside* the git package? I don't see
>> >that could have been ever advertised as the way to do it.
>> Okay so how exactly are we supposed to do it? Duh, rpm is the right
>choice for redhat systems.
>The same way kerberos, mariadb, apache, and essentially every other
>has a configuration file in /etc.
Good point. These tools (apache, for example) allow inclusion of a directory.
Users are encouraged to package their stuff inside eg httpd.d/, and the distros
ship a neutral config that includes that directory.
Your patch does not add this capability, so by your own definition it's
incomplete. As-is, the patch is half-baked.
If we have a clear upgrade path -- eg "move your current configs over to
/etc/git.d/your.conf" -- then it's a non-issue.
As-is, you're asking users to manually deal with the fallout. You're also
asking users to modify a package-manager controlled file (after your patch),
which IMO is suboptimal.
>> >Users don't package /etc/gitconfig outside git.
>> Wrong. Existence proof: me.
>You as a user are not packaging it, it's you as a system adimistrator.
Strawman. I represent at least at least a hundred users, but who cares. It
doesn't matter. The patch is incomplete.
>way, you are 0.0001% of Git's userbase, you are not representative.
And your point is what exactly? That once proven wrong you move the goalposts?
>> >>>> I like the idea. Docs? Also, should this not be done in the C
>> >so that we don't waste time reading the config, and also prevent
>> >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
>> >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.
>> We don't need this patch to allow distros to modify aliases.
>Likewise, allowing the aliases to diverge is less consistent. Do it at
>a lower level.
>We already allow the aliases to diverge, we allow it much more.
>The pach will make the aliases more consistent.
>> I also agree with Junio's notes about "ci". Something short that can
>add and remove from the index would be nice.
>cvs ci, svn ci, hg ci, they all work, but suddenly ci is not good
>enough for Git? Yeah, sure.
IMO this isn't the kind of thing that you or I can decide in isolation. Maybe
it is, or maybe the real differences between the "ci" mental model are enough
that it isn't. But you don't actually know the answer. You might think you do,
but your guess is just as good/bad/ugly as mine.
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.