On Fri, 7 May 2010, Avery Pennarun wrote: > On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- 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