Re: [PATCH v1] config: add '--sources' option to print the source of a config value

From: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 8, 2016, 11:22 UTC
Message-ID: <CAHGBnuOcWDhxn+poXhxasFW3gSon7fv8sugZqPjGZFMxNyf7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF57DD4F-630F-421D-A379-0A451F6509DF@gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

>>> However, the naming of the '--sources' option sounds a bit misleading to me.
>>> It has nothing to do with source code. So maybe better name it '--origin',
>>> or even more verbose '--show-origin' or '--show-filename'?
>>
>> I think he inherited the "--sources" name from me. :) I agree it could
>> be better. I think "--show-filename" is not right as there are
>> non-filename cases.  Just "--origin" sounds funny to me, perhaps because
>> of git's normal use of the word "origin".
>>
>> I like "--show-origin" the best of the ones suggested.
>
> I understand your reasoning and I agree that "--show-origin" is better than
> "--sources". However, I think just the word "origin" could be misleading in
> this context because people associate it with Git remotes. How about
> "--show-config-origin" then? Or would that be too verbose?

Well, "origin" just happens to be the name of the default remote. AFAIK all options that deal with remotes have "remote" and not "origin" in their name, so I think the risk of confusion is rather low. But I'd be fine with "--show-config-origin", too. Although it's verbose, it's probably not used very often, so personally I could live with typing the extra character. Esp. if you add Bash completion support for it :-)

-- 
Sebastian Schuberth