Re: [PATCH] Introduce the GIT_HOME environment variable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-0.6.html
>>
>> It solves the same problem ("set on environment variable, and change
>> my whole Git config"), but
>>
>> * It's a standard. It's really nice to be able to ...
>> * It avoids hidden files. With $GIT_CONFIG, a user doing
>
> I think the above are actually three bullet points (i.e. you lack line
> break and bullet before "It's really nice").

No, I don't.

You can do

| cd ~/.config
| ls
| 
| to see a user's configuration for many applications at a time,

_because_ it's a standard, and because it's followed by several
applications.

> And the third bullet is more or less a small subset of the second
> one, since you need "ls -a" without making them non-dot,

The standard may not write black-on-white
$XDG_CONFIG_HOME/subdir/filename _with filename being non-hidden_, but
in practice, this is what's happening.

> And I personally don't care very much about that second "It's really
> nice to be able to" point.

You may not care about consistancy between applications, but I do.
Currently, to version-control my user's configuration, I have
$HOME/etc containing my user's config files, and the actual config
files are symlinks to it. If applications were agreeing on a directory
where configuration files would be stored (is it is the case on
systems like MS Windows, and I think Mac OS), I would just had done
"cd this-config-directory; git init".

With the proposed $GIT_HOME, I have a way to specify _Git_'s path to
config files. Another application may propose $WHATEVER_ELSE_HOME, and
yet another would say $HOME_YET_ANOTHER_ONE, and so on. There's a
proposal to have a single environment variable for all this, why
reject it?

> As to the particular "standard" cited, I don't know how relevant it is to
> us at this moment, or in this topic.  Judging from the fact that it
> doesn't even define the scope of the standard (e.g. what classes of
> applications are expected to follow it, for what benefit do they follow
> it, how are they expected to handle differences between their historical
> practice and the new world order it introduces, etc. etc....), I suspect
> it is a very early draft that will be heavily copyedited before final,
> once professional standard writers start looking at it.

I mostly agree on the critics, but do you have any better "standard"
(actually, not necessarily an official standard, but "something that
various applications can agree on") to propose?

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]