Re: Overriding ~/.gitconfig using GIT_CONFIG

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net> writes:
> >
> >> Looking through the manuals/code, it suggests I should be able to do:
> >>
> >> GIT_CONFIG=/dev/null git XXX
> >>
> >> and all should work happily. It doesn't though. As an example, with a
> >> ~/.gitconfig, "GIT_CONFIG=/dev/null git fetch --all" is clearly
> >> accessing the file in ~ and then acting upon it.
> >
> > If the manual says the above is expected for any value of XXX, then that
> > is a bug in the manual since mid 2008, I think.
> >
> > See dc87183 (Only use GIT_CONFIG in "git config", not other programs,
> > 2008-06-30).
> >
> > I _think_ these days a workaround to force a known config is to set HOME
> > to a value that has a known .gitconfig (or no such file), and decline
> > usage of /etc/git.config by exporting GIT_CONFIG_NOSYSTEM.
> 
> Side note. Here is what dc87183 says:
> 
> commit dc87183189b54441e315d35d48983d80ab085299
> Author: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
> Date:   Mon Jun 30 03:37:47 2008 -0400
> 
>     Only use GIT_CONFIG in "git config", not other programs
>     
>     For everything other than using "git config" to read or write a
>     git-style config file that isn't the current repo's config file,
>     GIT_CONFIG was actively detrimental. Rather than argue over which
>     programs are important enough to have work anyway, just fix all of
>     them at the root.
>     
>     Also removes GIT_LOCAL_CONFIG, which would only be useful for programs
>     that do want to use global git-specific config, but not the repo's own
>     git-specific config, and want to use some other, presumably
>     git-specific config. Despite being documented, I can't find any sign that
>     it was ever used.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
> 
> It clearly explains the reason why LOCAL_CONFIG was removed (the reader
> does not have to agree with "I can't find any sign that it was ever used",
> though), but I cannot read from the first paragraph the reason why it was
> felt necessary not to honor GIT_CONFIG in other programs, i.e. "was
> actively detrimental" is not backed by any example in the paragraph. I can
> sort of sense from "Rather than argue over..." that there may have been a
> discussion on the list, and reading the archive from that timeframe may
> reveal why many felt it was not a good idea.
> 
> Daniel, do you recall the context?