Re: Overriding ~/.gitconfig using GIT_CONFIG

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 12, 2011, 19:39 UTC
Message-ID: <7vmxfemnc4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vr54qmodf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net> writes:
>
>> Looking through the manuals/code, it suggests I should be able to do:
>>
>> GIT_CONFIG=/dev/null git XXX
>>
>> and all should work happily. It doesn't though. As an example, with a
>> ~/.gitconfig, "GIT_CONFIG=/dev/null git fetch --all" is clearly
>> accessing the file in ~ and then acting upon it.
>
> If the manual says the above is expected for any value of XXX, then that
> is a bug in the manual since mid 2008, I think.
>
> See dc87183 (Only use GIT_CONFIG in "git config", not other programs,
> 2008-06-30).
>
> I _think_ these days a workaround to force a known config is to set HOME
> to a value that has a known .gitconfig (or no such file), and decline
> usage of /etc/git.config by exporting GIT_CONFIG_NOSYSTEM.

Side note. Here is what dc87183 says:

commit dc87183189b54441e315d35d48983d80ab085299
Author: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date:   Mon Jun 30 03:37:47 2008 -0400

    Only use GIT_CONFIG in "git config", not other programs
    
    For everything other than using "git config" to read or write a
    git-style config file that isn't the current repo's config file,
    GIT_CONFIG was actively detrimental. Rather than argue over which
    programs are important enough to have work anyway, just fix all of
    them at the root.
    
    Also removes GIT_LOCAL_CONFIG, which would only be useful for programs
    that do want to use global git-specific config, but not the repo's own
    git-specific config, and want to use some other, presumably
    git-specific config. Despite being documented, I can't find any sign that
    it was ever used.
    
    Signed-off-by: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
    Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

It clearly explains the reason why LOCAL_CONFIG was removed (the reader does not have to agree with "I can't find any sign that it was ever used", though), but I cannot read from the first paragraph the reason why it was felt necessary not to honor GIT_CONFIG in other programs, i.e. "was actively detrimental" is not backed by any example in the paragraph. I can sort of sense from "Rather than argue over..." that there may have been a discussion on the list, and reading the archive from that timeframe may reveal why many felt it was not a good idea.

Daniel, do you recall the context?