Re: [PATCH] config: Use parseopt.
- From
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 14, 2009, 21:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <94a0d4530902141313i24ddc571m6a041f3879960ab2@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0902142025420.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 35 quoted lines
> Hi, > > On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Johannes Schindelin >> > <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> > > >> > >> 1) --list when no config file is given uses all the config files, >> > >> wouldn't it make sense to have a --repo option? >> > > >> > > The idea of --list is not "cat .git/config". The idea is to help users or >> > > scripts to list the current settings (_including_ the global settings). >> > > >> > > You can force showing the repo-specific config with "git --file >> > > .git/config", though. >> > >> > When you are on the root directory of the repo, and you don't have >> > GIT_DIR, or --git-dir. >> >> When I wrote my response, I briefly considered if I had to be verbose, and >> decided against it. >> >> But this is what I should have written: >> >> git --file $(git rev-parse --git-dir)/config --list > > Okay, before anybody points out that I was not verbose enough -- again -- > this is what I really should have written: > > git --file "$(git rev-parse --git-dir)"/config --list
Yeap, it's possible, but I think people would not complain about "git --repo --list". I think it would be much clearer to have --global --system --repo and --all. Then we can say --list by default uses --all, and --edit uses --repo, and it doesn't make sense to do --edit --all.
Anyway, I don't care that much.
-- Felipe Contreras