On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:30 PM, David Aguilar <davvid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Aguilar <davvid@xxxxxxxxx> 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") You package /etc/gitconfig *outside* the git package? I don't see how that could have been ever advertised as the way to do it. > and asking users to manually fix up thousands of machines is a bad idea. Users don't package /etc/gitconfig outside git. >>> 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. So you think we have more consistency right now? We don't even have a predefined /etc/gitconfig, that creates more inconsistency, as everybody's configs and aliases are very very different. This patch would definitely make things more consistent. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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