On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 03:16:27PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Isn't GIT_CONFIG here another way of saying: > > > > test_must_fail git config -f doesnotexist --list > > > > Perhaps that is shorter and more readable still (and there are a few > > similar cases in this patch. > > Surely, but are we assuming that "git config" correctly honors the > equivalence between GIT_CONFIG=file and -f file, or is that also > something we are testing in these tests? I think we can assume that they are equivalent, and it is not worth testing (and they are equivalent in code since 270a344 (config: stop using config_exclusive_filename, 2012-02-16). My recollection is that GIT_CONFIG mostly exists as a historical footnote. Recall that at one time it affected all commands, but that had many problems and was done away with in dc87183 (Only use GIT_CONFIG in "git config", not other programs, 2008-06-30). I think we left it in place for git-config mostly for backward compatibility, but I didn't see that point explicitly addressed in the list discussion (the main issue was that setting it for things besides "git config" is a bad idea, as it suppresses ~/.gitconfig). -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