On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 09:30:56PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> While I do not think origin/meta:config is a sensible default, I actually
> do think that:
>
> [include]
> ref = meta:gitconfig
> [branch "meta"]
> remote = origin
> merge = refs/heads/meta
>
> makes some sense. The earlier example with the in-tree dev_tools/config in
> the same line of history as the usual source material to keep track of
> private changes ("this single user hating it") was not realistic as it
> forbids the user from sharing the rest of the source once she decides to
> fork the config preference.
I don't think having it in-tree makes a difference. I can fork the
regular tree into my config branch, and it contains only my config
changes. If I want to share config changes with people, then I do so by
sharing that branch. But it need not have any impact on the "real"
branch I create from the regular tree. The fact that the rest of the
source files are in the config branch are irrelevant.
That being said, I think it would be nicer for projects to carry meta
information like this out-of-tree in a special ref. It's just simpler to
work with, and it means the project's source isn't polluted with extra
junk.
-Peff
--
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