Re: [PATCH] user-manual: Use "git config --global" instead of editing ~/.gitconfig

From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
Date: May 11, 2007, 03:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20070511034653.GB26896@fieldses.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070510230045.GF4489@pasky.or.cz>

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 01:00:45AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:

> However, in that case I think this is not the good point to show
> ~/.gitconfig. Your goal at that point should be to get the user able
> to commit as simply as possible,

Sure.

> and having to manually edit some config file is unnecessary hassle
> when you can just use these two simple commands;

I don't get it; why are the two commands "simple", and editing a file a "hassle"? In terms of, say, time required, or number of keystrokes, I suspect the two are about the same. And it seems to me that:

	- As users of a tool designed mainly to track changes to text
	  files, git users are likely to be pretty proficient at editing
	  text files.
	- People also need to be able to view the configuration and
	  change it.  If they make a typo on the first try, they may
	  need to do this sooner rather than later.  With a config file,
	  this is trivial.  With git-config, you have to learn at least
	  one new thing (how to query values).
	- The config file is easier to read than the git-config output.
	- You're going to have to edit some text anyway to plug your
	  name in, so we can't make this a pure cut-n-paste from the
	  docs.

> also, we use the same commands in tutorials, crash courses etc. So I
> really think that consistency is better here. The more viable strategy
> is to mention that git-config really just plays with simple text files
> at some...  later point. :-)

So while I'm not convinced of the value of consistency here, if we have to have consistency, I'd rather standardize on config-file-editing.

--b.