On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:45:59PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "W. Trevor King" <wk...@tremily.us> writes: > > I think for new users, `git config …`'s opacity may a good thing > > No. Reducing the fear factor from new users by not hiding simple > things is one of the design of these tutorials, and showing that the > contents of .git/config is a simple, human-readable plain text file > is a part of it. > > > 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? > > I would actually say why bother with `git remote` at all, when you > can do that with `git config`, but arguably when a Porcelain that is > type-specific exists, use of it would make the life of end users > easier, and that is why we ended up having `git remote add`. So if > you know how the remote configuration is implemented, you can still > use `config` to do the same, but `remote add` that futzes with many > variables at once would be easier to use for most people.
Hmm. It sounds like maybe it would be better to skip both `git config` and `git remote` and focus on the config file text itself. Explain what each line does. When we talk about identifing yourself (which is, I think, the first point configuration comes up), we can mention `git config` as an alternative interface. When we talk about remotes, we can mention `git remote` as an alternative interface. Both references would just point you to the man pages. Thoughts? -- 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
Description: OpenPGP digital signature