Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/3] Per-repository end-of-line normalization

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Date: May 7, 2010, 21:12 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005071708090.14468@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <n2l32541b131005071400uf90ab0e8se882fce6b3abf522@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 7 May 2010, Avery Pennarun wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 May 2010, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> >> Since the options it *does* have are exactly the same as .git/config,
> >> however, naming it .gitconfig makes sense.
> >
> > Well, I disagree.
> >
> >> I'd say just print a
> >> warning when reading options that are going to be ignored for security
> >> reasons (or because they're not known at all, or whatever).
> >
> > Or just make it .gitparams (or anything you wish) which is not the same
> > as gitconfig. This way it is less likely to get bogus bug reports for
> > options that aren't supported.
> 
> It has exactly the same syntax as ~/.gitconfig, and the options it
> does support can all be carried over literally to ~/.gitconfig.

Absolutely not.

Most options for ~/.gitconfig simply make no sense in a distributed .gitconfig file.

> Calling it something else would imply that it deserves its own man
> page, which would need to repeat all the options that are already
> documented for ~/.gitconfig.

No because most of those options don't and can't apply to a distributed option file.

> I'd say something that's syntactically identical, and in some cases
> actually interchangeable, should have the same name.

Indeed.  But this is not the case here.

Nicolas