David Aguilar wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:30 PM, David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Will this not conflict with folks that supply their own gitconfig?
> >>
> >>> You mean people that provide their own ETC_GITCONFIG? If you mean
> >> distributions, their packaging would override /etc/gitconfig, if you
> >> mean people that have already a /etc/gitconfig, packaging systems
> >> usually save the old one so they can solve the conflict manually
> >(e.g.
> >> /etc/gitconfig.pacsave). So no, it would not conflict.
> >>
> >> Yuck. Yes, that one. I package my own /etc/gitconfig (as we have long
> >advertised as the "way to do it")
> >
> >You package /etc/gitconfig *outside* the git package? I don't see how
> >that could have been ever advertised as the way to do it.
> 
> Okay so how exactly are we supposed to do it?  Duh, rpm is the right choice 
> for redhat systems. 

The same way kerberos, mariadb, apache, and essentially every other tool that
has a configuration file in /etc.

> >Users don't package /etc/gitconfig outside git.
> 
> Wrong. Existence proof: me. 

You as a user are not packaging it, it's you as a system adimistrator. Either
way, you are 0.0001% of Git's userbase, you are not representative.

> >>>> I like the idea. Docs?  Also, should this not be done in the C side
> >so that we don't waste time reading the config, and also prevent users
> >from overriding these?
> >>
> >>> But we want them to be easily readable, and possibly allow
> >> distributions to easily modify them.
> >>
> >> In that case I take it back -- I dont like that approach.  We want
> >consistency, not divergence. This encourages the former.
> >
> >So you think we have more consistency right now? We don't even have a
> >predefined /etc/gitconfig, that creates more inconsistency, as
> >everybody's configs and aliases are very very different.
> >
> >This patch would definitely make things more consistent.
> 
> We don't need this patch to allow distros to modify aliases. Likewise, 
> allowing the aliases to diverge is less consistent. Do it at a lower level. 

We already allow the aliases to diverge, we allow it much more.

The pach will make the aliases more consistent.

> I also agree with Junio's notes about "ci". Something short that can add and 
> remove from the index would be nice. 

cvs ci, svn ci, hg ci, they all work, but suddenly ci is not good enough for 
Git? Yeah, sure.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to