Re: [PATCH] build: add default configuration
- From
- David Aguilar <davvid-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org>
- Date
- Sep 19, 2013, 02:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <ab38a1b5-e354-4e32-8ede-46a401ef8053.maildroid@localhost>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAMP44s35_emnh9Kce433oy1JW66xB2vaN5f5OO7VF1XqoO=YGQ-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
>On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Aguilar <davvid-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> Will this not conflict with folks that supply their own gitconfig?
> You mean people that provide their own ETC_GITCONFIG? If you mean
distributions, their packaging would override /etc/gitconfig, if you mean people that have already a /etc/gitconfig, packaging systems usually save the old one so they can solve the conflict manually (e.g. /etc/gitconfig.pacsave). So no, it would not conflict.
Yuck. Yes, that one. I package my own /etc/gitconfig (as we have long advertised as the "way to do it") and asking users to manually fix up thousands of machines is a bad idea.
Yes, thousands. We're much past 30,000 cores at the moment.
>> I like the idea. Docs? Also, should this not be done in the C side so that we don't waste time reading the config, and also prevent users from overriding these?
> But we want them to be easily readable, and possibly allow
distributions to easily modify them.
In that case I take it back -- I dont like that approach. We want consistency, not divergence. This encourages the former.
-- David