Re: git-config(1) should mention `git -c`

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> That seems like the most sensible place, as that is where we should
>> cover the order of reading and precedence. Perhaps FILES should be
>> renamed to SOURCES or something (though I do not recall if we are
>> restricted to "usual" manpage section names or not).
>>
>> Arguably this is not about git-config the program at all, but the
>> general concept of "configuration for git", because the precedence rules
>> apply equally to all of the git programs that read config.
>
> True, but that argument leads us to say git(1) is the best place ;-)
>
> If the user wants to know "how does the configuration values get
> read?", and wishes not having to go around fishing for the
> information in multiple places (and I think that is a reasonable
> thing to wish for), I think adding it to the FILES section of
> git-config(1) is a better option than inventing a separate
> gitconfig(7), which would still require the user to consult two
> places.