Re: Get rid of .git/branches/ and .git/remotes/?

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Nov 23, 2005, 23:21 UTC
Message-ID: <7viruj3q7z.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511231553390.8191@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

>> So... "git-config-set" is used for both getting and setting? Why not just
>> "git-config --set" and "git-config --get" to make things a bit less confusing?
>
> I tried to do this more like a proof of a concept (Yeah, famous last 
> words...) and tried to be not so intrusive. There is already a config.c, 
> and to keep with the naming, this would have to move to config-lib.c to 
> make space for config.c which really is the source for git-config$(X).
>
> Should we rename config.c to config-lib.c, and config-set.c to config.c? 
> Personally, I think it too intrusive, but what the heck.

I do not think that change is intrusive. We've renamed source files number of times ;-).

I somehow get a very funny feeling to see "git-XXXX --get" command that reports different things in different repositories (for obvious reasons) called git-config, and not git-repository-config. But it probably is just me.

Anyway, the whole "remote specification in config file" is not a very high priority for me right now.