On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'd _really_ prefer to not have any preferences or other metadata files
> > under version control within that same project.
> Don't you think that would be a per-project decision?  Is it
> acceptable if I make sure that .gitinfo/* is _optional_ and
> things do not break for projects that do not use it?

It can't be a per-project decision, since the preferences are 

In other words, if it's per-project, then that implies that every single 
developer has to agree on the same thing. Which just not possible - it 
makes no sense.

In contrast, if you have a separate local _branch_ that maintains a
".gitinfo"  totally separately (no common commits at all), then you can
choose to propagate/participate in that branch or not, as you wish, on a
per-developer basis.

> I agree.  The .gitinfo/fake-parents may be a good thing in that
> sense to have project-wide,

I disagree. Even something like fake-parents isn't project-wide. 

For example, what if I tried to dig out even _more_ information than what 
is in the BK CVS archives? Or if I wanted to have just the 2.6.0-> 
history? The whole point of fake-parents is that you can do things like 
that - you can point your history at alternative views.

If we'd make it project-global, then we might as well just rewrite the 
original commit entirely, and use "git-convert-cache" to convert the whole 
archive. At that point, fake-parents becomes pointless.

>                        and as long as the kernel person
> (that is you) do not add .gitinfo/commit-template you would be
> happy, wouldn't you?

What you're saying is that people can be happy if they just don't use a 
stupid decision. That's a sure sign that the decision shouldn't have been 
made in the first place.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to