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 per-developer. 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. Linus - 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