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
> 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