Re: git bug? + question

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Nov 4, 2006, 05:10 UTC
Message-ID: <20061104051008.GC9003@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <20061103232936.GC6970@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:29:45PM -0500, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> 
> > Nack.  I'd rather see the entries added/removed from .git/config when
> > the branch is created/deleted, just like the ref and the reflog are
> > created/deleted.  It makes behavior more consistent for the user
> > and it is mostly self documenting...
> 
> If we go this route, please consider updating .git/auto-branch-config or
> similar, and adding the functionality to include that file into
> .git/config.
> 
> I think the concept of automagically munging a user-editable config file
> is problematic, especially when users might manage those files with
> version control or other systems.

Most users that I know use repo-config to munge their .git/config rather than editing it by hand. Though with more data stored in it for branches and remotes that is probably going to change.

If we go this route I wonder if want to say create a config file per branch and then use a wildcard include like Apache's httpd.conf wildcard include, e.g.:

	.git/config:
		include branch_configs/**/*.config

	.git/branch_configs/refs/heads/master.config:
		[branch "master"]
			...

As then git-branch is only manipulating one file per branch.