Jeff King <> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 03:16:27PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Isn't GIT_CONFIG here another way of saying:
>> >
>> >   test_must_fail git config -f doesnotexist --list
>> >
>> > Perhaps that is shorter and more readable still (and there are a few
>> > similar cases in this patch.
>> Surely, but are we assuming that "git config" correctly honors the
>> equivalence between GIT_CONFIG=file and -f file, or is that also
>> something we are testing in these tests?
> I think we can assume that they are equivalent, and it is not worth
> testing (and they are equivalent in code since 270a344 (config: stop
> using config_exclusive_filename, 2012-02-16).
> My recollection is that GIT_CONFIG mostly exists as a historical
> footnote. Recall that at one time it affected all commands, but that had
> many problems and was done away with in dc87183 (Only use GIT_CONFIG in
> "git config", not other programs, 2008-06-30). I think we left it in
> place for git-config mostly for backward compatibility,...

Thanks.  Then I think it makes sense to do such a conversion but it
probably should be done on top of this patch (we could do it before
this patch), not as a part of this patch.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to