From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:43:21 GMT Subject: Re: What's in git.git Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20060618130837.GN2609@pasky.or.cz> Hi, On Sun, 18 Jun 2006, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:26:14PM CEST, I got a letter > where Johannes Schindelin said that... > > There is one thing I don't like about Pasky's approach: You can change the > > config file name to whatever you like, even if no program will read it. > > That is why I decided to have a flag instead of an option: to prevent > > pilot-errors. > > I'm lost here, admittelly not getting your argument. :-( Okay, the point I was driving at: GIT_CONFIG_FILE=~/.gitrc git repo-config blabla.blibli bloblo _will_ succeed, but to the user it will be non-obvious that the git commands do not pick up on it (because ~/.gitconfig is read instead of ~/.gitrc), whereas git repo-config --user blabla.blibli bloblo is pretty obvious, and _has_ the intended effect. > > I cobbled together a patch, which turned out to be rather messy, > > introducing "--config-file " to git-repo-config. If people are > > interested, I'll clean it up and post it. But then, if you already know > > you want to use another config file, you are probably better of just > > exporting GIT_CONFIG_FILE and be done with it. > > $GIT_CONFIG_FILE feels nicer since any other git tool can use it as > well, it's not git-repo-config-specific. But the current intent indeed > is to simply override the location for git-repo-config, thus for the > current purposes if we will have --config-file instead of > GIT_CONFIG_FILE, I will not weep; whatever does the job. Yes, that is true. Forget about my --config-file patch, please. > > Note that this issue is orthogonal to the need for a user-specific config > > file. I still think that this one should go in. > > I agree as well. Ciao, Dscho