Re: Generic configuration plumbing (Was: Re: [RFC 2/2] Automatically transform...)

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 28, 2005, 15:26 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511281620520.11052@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <200511281532.36054.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>

Hi,

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Josef Weidendorfer wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Monday 28 November 2005 14:11, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> > Josef Weidendorfer wrote:
> > > 
> > > To allow for this, git_config() should not be hardcoded to only
> > > read .git/config, but perhaps a list of files in environment variable
> > > GIT_CONFIG_FILES.
> > > 
> > 
> > $HOME/.gitrc:$GIT_DIR/conf/*
> 
> Yes, perhaps with this as default...
> 
> > All files could support the freestanding "include" syntax.
> 
> Better run cpp on the config files before loading ;-)
> Or provide a hook which returns the config on stdout.
> The default for .git/hooks/config would be
> 
> 	cat $GIT_DIR/config
> 
> Hmm... this was only meant to be a joke; but now I actually think
> this is a nice idea as basic configuration mechanism of git plumbing.

The longer I read this thread the more I *positively* *hate* to have started it.

People, I wanted simplification. And you ask instead for every feature and his dog, and could I have fries with that?

KISS!

I *don't* want split config files. Why? Because it buys you only confusion and complication. If you want to group variables, do so with sections (BTW that's what they were designed for).

I am perfectly okay when somebody says that I should leave things as they are and not fsck around with configuration. The impression I get is that you want to force me to admit that I was wrong from the start.

Ciao, Dscho