From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:11:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] config: add '--sources' option to print the source of a config value
Message-ID: <20160208121108.GB24217@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <DF57DD4F-630F-421D-A379-0A451F6509DF@gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:28:26PM +0100, Lars Schneider wrote:

> > I think he inherited the "--sources" name from me. :) I agree it could
> > be better. I think "--show-filename" is not right as there are
> > non-filename cases.  Just "--origin" sounds funny to me, perhaps because
> > of git's normal use of the word "origin".
> > 
> > I like "--show-origin" the best of the ones suggested.
> 
> I understand your reasoning and I agree that "--show-origin" is better than
> "--sources". However, I think just the word "origin" could be misleading in 
> this context because people associate it with Git remotes. How about
> "--show-config-origin" then? Or would that be too verbose?

I think "-config" is redundant here, as we are running "git config". We
have "--add" and not "--add-config", after all.

I dunno. TBH, I do not find --sources to be all that bad. I suspect we
could nitpick any name, and at least it is short and unique.

-Peff