Re: [PATCH 6/7] user-manual: add global config section
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 2, 2009, 00:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vfxfotl4d.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <94a0d4530905011551r635a4ebfrba86707419e13cc4@mail.gmail.com>
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
Show 15 quoted lines
>> A good sequence would be: >> >> To start working on a tarball extract (or your uncontrolled >> project) with git, first do: >> >> $ git init >> >> Whoa. That was fast. Did it do anything? Yes, it created a >> subdirectory .git that is going to store your history and other >> control information. Right now you do not have any history (nor >> the current state for that matter) recorded in it, but it already >> has some control information. One of the more important one is >> the per-repository configuration file. Take a look: > ... > Most people don't start with 'git init' they start with 'git clone'
That does not just not change the issue but even strengthens my point. After clone, you have a working per-repository .git/config file that is a good demonstration of how easy and simple the syntax is. You of course need to adjust the prose to guide the user to the configuration file if you use clone instead of init, but that goes without saying.
By the way, I think you lacked 1/4 in your last round and this time it is missing too.
[ 17: Felipe Contreras ] [PATCH v2 0/4] user-manual: general impro [ 74: Felipe Contreras ] [PATCH v2 2/4] user-manual: use 'fast-for [ 51: Felipe Contreras ] [PATCH v2 3/4] user-manual: add global c [ 38: Felipe Contreras ] [PATCH v2 4/4] user-manual: simplify th
The description in 0/4 makes it sound like 1/4 is a general clean-up improvement, and so is 2/4. Can we apply these two first (and we obviously need to find that missing 1/4 --- is there some git-send-email bug hiding or something)?
The two patches 3/4 and 4/4 are not "general" improvement; it is to advocate the use of "git config" more instead of showing the file in the editor, and while you obviously think it is an improvement, I do not think there is a "general" consensus that it is an improvement.
More importantly, I do not think that is integral part of the "general clean-up", and by making it a separate topic, we can shrink the size of the patches in flight.