On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> writes: > >> --global:: >> + For writing options: write to global user configuration file >> + rather than the repository `.git/config`. >> + >> +For reading options: read only from global user configuration file >> +rather than from all available files. >> + >> See also <<FILES>>. > > OK. > >> @@ -237,26 +235,30 @@ See also <<FILES>>. >> FILES >> ----- >> >> +If not set explicitly with `--file`, there are three locations where >> 'git config' will search for configuration options: >> >> +System-wide configuration:: >> + Located at `$(prefix)/etc/gitconfig`. >> >> +User-specific configuration:: >> + One and only one of the following files will be read > > We said "will search for" upfront, but this talks about "will be > read", leaving the reader puzzled as to what should happen when > writing. Perhaps "s/read/used/"? >
Ok, that makes sense. I'm definitely iffy on all this wording, as I didn't really like the previous approach, but couldn't find anything better than the approach shown here. I'd be welcome to suggestions for another way to format this information. >> ++ >> +- `~/.gitconfig` >> +- `$XDG_CONFIG_HOME/git/config` >> +- `$HOME/.config/git/config` >> ++ >> +If `~/.gitconfig` exists, it will be used, and the other files will not be >> +read. Otherwise, if `$XDG_CONFIG_HOME` is set, then >> `$XDG_CONFIG_HOME/git/config` >> +will be used, otherwise `$HOME/.config/git/config` will be used. > > And then "and the other files will not be read" can be dropped from > the first sentence of this paragraph? > > Yaroslav on the original thread mentioned that reading codepath > without --file or --global does not limit to one of the three, and > this section is about "If not set explicitly with `--file`", so we'd > need to make sure if the above is what happens in reality (or update > the proposed clarification to match the reality). I'm pretty sure it does not read XDG_CONFIG_HOME unless ~/.gitconfig is missing. I tried a few things, but it was 2am for me, so I may be mis-remembering. Either way, I'd prefer if we had explicit tests in the suite which verified our assumptions. Thanks, Jake > > Thanks.
