Re: [PATCH 1/1] Tell vim the textwidth is 75.

> Dear diary, on Sat, Jul 23, 2005 at 10:41:38AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com> told me that...
> > The problem appears when one upstream maintainer changes the
> > configuration, should this be merged again? In this case you can get
> > conflicts.
> 
> So you resolve them...? If the upstream keeps doing changes frequent
> enough and large-scale enough to this becoming annoying, something is
> wrong. :-)

> > That's OK with one issue - git should be able to exclude _git when
> > generating a diff between 2 trees, unless one can enforce the _git/*
> > files to be read-only.
> 
> Why? I think those meta-information is important too, and if it differs,
> I want to see it in the diff. Oh, now I see what you mean - to
> optionally exclude it. That would be nice, having --exclude in
> common diff options.

> > Another option would be to have .git/info/<branch> and, with cogito for
> > example, .git/info/origin should always be pulled, even if the local
> > files were modified. You would override these settings
> > in .git/info/master. The problem is to define the branches order in
> > which the settings are read.
> 
> Yes, and you may be pulling from multiple branches. I would keep
> .git/info simple and single-instanced. If you want your stuff to
> propagate to others, put it to .gitinfo/.

> > This could be avoided by using ini-like files (well, easy to read in
> > Python) and have [git] (for the common things like author name),
> > [cogito], [stgit] etc. sections.
> 
> Now if it is going to look like this, I think separate files would be
> much more practical, more effective and likely simpler for the user as
> well. For Cogito-specific stuff, the user can well dive into
> Cogito-specific configuration files, I think. (Well, there's none now;
> there is .cgrc but that only contains default options for Cogito
> commands and will stay so; I plan ~/.cg/cogito.conf or something.
> Actually, perhaps the Git configuration file should be ~/.git/git.conf -
> it looks cool, doesn't it?)

> > The problem is how much similar we want the Porcelains to be regarding
> > the settings and the templates. For StGIT, it is much simpler to have
> > something like '%(FILELIST)s' rather than '@FILELIST@' in a template but
> > I have not problem with switching to a common syntax. But we should see
> > what can easily be changed.
> 
> I chose @FILELIST@ only since it is a common convention to have this as
> rewrite placeholders, and I think it's more visually clear than
> %(FILELIST). Were you insisting on the second syntax, I wouldn't have
> %any problem switching, though. Cogito does no @@ rewriting yet.