Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > ... Which makes me wonder if safe-include is really helping that > much versus a project shipping a shell script that munges the repository > config. The latter is less safe (you are, after all, running code, but > you would at least have the chance to examine it), but is way more > flexible. And the safety is comparable to running "make" on a cloned > project. > > I dunno. I do not have anything against the safe-include idea, but each > time it comes up, I think we are often left guessing about exactly which > config options projects would want to set, and to what values. I tend to agree. Every time somebody says "a project wants to give its participants suggested settings", we seem to tell them to ship an instruction to their participants, either in BUILDING or setup.sh or whatever. It certainly is simpler and more flexible. The only real difference it might make is an attempt to push to an unattended place and automatically making the changes to take effect, aka "push to deploy", which is not what we encourage anyway, so... -- 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