Re: Git config multiple values

> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:10:17PM +0200, aleksander.baranowski wrote:
> 
>> I'm currently using git version 2.14.2. There is possible to put
>> multiple values into same variable with git config.
> 
> Yep, your examples should behave the same even with older versions.
> 
>> Case 1:
>> # git config --global user.name Foo - returns 0
>> # git config --global user.name Bar - returns 0 and replace Foo to Bar
>> # git config --global user.name Foo - returns 0 and replace Bar to Foo
> 
> This is all as expected. You're hitting the first case in the manpage
> synopsis here (I snipped the uninteresting options):
> 
>   git config name [value [value_regex]]
> 
> So you're doing:
> 
>   git config name value
> 
> which replaces any existing key by default. You could also do:
> 
>   git config --add name value
> 
> to add without replacing (if you had a config key that takes multiple
> values).
> 
>> Case 2:
>> # git config --global user.name Foo - returns 0
>> # git config --global user.name Foo2 Bar - returns 0 and put second name
> 
> Here you're doing:
> 
>   git config name value value_regex
> 
> So we're replacing any values which match the regex "Bar" (and there are
> none), and leaving others intact. Hence after this you will have two
> user.name values.
> 
> If you wanted a name with two strings, you'd have to quote the string
> from the shell to leave it as a single argument:
> 
>   git config user.name "Foo2 Bar"
> 
>> # cat ~/.gitconfig
>> [user]
>> 	email = aleksander.baranowski@yahoo.pl
>> 	name = Foo
>> 	name = Foo2
> 
> Right, this is what I'd expect.
> 
>> # git config --global user.name Foo - return 5 and message
>> "warning: user.name has multiple values
>> error: cannot overwrite multiple values with a single value
>>        Use a regexp, --add or --replace-all to change user.name."
> 
> And this, too (though I forgot we had such a safety check).
> 
>> It's just an opinion, but this behaviour is no consistent for me.
>>
>> If it's not the bug it's a feature just let me know.
> 
> It's a feature, though I agree that git-config is rather baroque. We're
> mostly stuck with it for reasons of backwards compatibility, though.
> 
> -Peff
>