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.


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