On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 01:33:31PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Look at how "Fetching branches from other repositories" is done.  It
> shows the use of "remote add" and then shows the result by running
> "cat" to show the contents.
> I think that organization is much nicer than completely hiding how
> the result looks like behind another "git config --set" call, like
> the latter half of this patch does.

I think for new users, `git config …`'s opacity may a good thing.  Who
cares how Git stores the config values?  Only users who like to edit
the config files by hand (like, um, me ;).  For someone trying to wrap
their head around Git for the first time, the fact that you can read
and set config values which are stored somewhere should be enough.

I don't feel strongly enough in favor of `git config` to push on this
though, so I'd be happy dropping this patch in favor of:

> The resulting text may read like so:
> …

I'm fine with this too, but if this is the suggested route, why bother
with `git config` at all?  Is it just for ease of scripting?


This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to