Re: [PATCH] build: add default configuration

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Date: Sep 20, 2013, 21:02 UTC
Message-ID: <523cb7e7a2d70_5010801e84148e8@nysa.mail>
In-Reply-To: <4d9893bc-c812-457b-9f40-ebe01d37df53-2ueSQiBKiTY7tOexoI0I+QC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>

David Aguilar wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:30 PM, David Aguilar <davvid-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Aguilar <davvid-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Will this not conflict with folks that supply their own gitconfig?
> >>
> >>> You mean people that provide their own ETC_GITCONFIG? If you mean
> >> distributions, their packaging would override /etc/gitconfig, if you
> >> mean people that have already a /etc/gitconfig, packaging systems
> >> usually save the old one so they can solve the conflict manually
> >(e.g.
> >> /etc/gitconfig.pacsave). So no, it would not conflict.
> >>
> >> Yuck. Yes, that one. I package my own /etc/gitconfig (as we have long
> >advertised as the "way to do it")
> >
> >You package /etc/gitconfig *outside* the git package? I don't see how
> >that could have been ever advertised as the way to do it.
> 
> Okay so how exactly are we supposed to do it?  Duh, rpm is the right choice for redhat systems.

The same way kerberos, mariadb, apache, and essentially every other tool that has a configuration file in /etc.

> >Users don't package /etc/gitconfig outside git.
> 
> Wrong. Existence proof: me.

You as a user are not packaging it, it's you as a system adimistrator. Either way, you are 0.0001% of Git's userbase, you are not representative.

Show 17 quoted lines

> >>>> I like the idea. Docs?  Also, should this not be done in the C side
> >so that we don't waste time reading the config, and also prevent users
> >from overriding these?
> >>
> >>> But we want them to be easily readable, and possibly allow
> >> distributions to easily modify them.
> >>
> >> In that case I take it back -- I dont like that approach.  We want
> >consistency, not divergence. This encourages the former.
> >
> >So you think we have more consistency right now? We don't even have a
> >predefined /etc/gitconfig, that creates more inconsistency, as
> >everybody's configs and aliases are very very different.
> >
> >This patch would definitely make things more consistent.
> 
> We don't need this patch to allow distros to modify aliases. Likewise, allowing the aliases to diverge is less consistent. Do it at a lower level.

We already allow the aliases to diverge, we allow it much more.

The pach will make the aliases more consistent.

> I also agree with Junio's notes about "ci". Something short that can add and remove from the index would be nice.

cvs ci, svn ci, hg ci, they all work, but suddenly ci is not good enough for Git? Yeah, sure.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.