On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:57:02AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> "either" meaning "we do not need to add --local and we do not need > >> GIT_CONFIG_NOSYSTEM"? > > > > Yes. I didn't test it with your core.abbrev patch 4/4, but I _didn't_ > > have to touch their expected output after pointing them at a non-empty > > etc-gitconfig file in the trash directory. Which implies to me they > > don't care either way (which makes sense; they are asking for a specific > > key which is supposed to be found in one of the other files). > > There is a bit of problem here, though. > > * If we make t1300 point at its own system-wide config, it will be > in control of its contents, so "find this key" will find only it > wants to find (or we found a regression). > > * But then if it ever does something that depends on the default > value of core.abbrev (or whatever we'd tweak in response to the > next suggestion by Linus ;-), we cannot really allow it to do > so. We'd want t/gitconfig-for-test to be the single place that > we can tweak these things, but we'll have to know t1300 uses its > own and need to make the same change there, too. Right, but I think that's fine. Tests that care deeply about the contents of etc-gitconfig are unlikely to care about core.abbrev. And in the off chance that they do, then the worst case is...they get updated to handle core.abbrev (either passing a command line option, or just putting core.abbrev in their test file). I just don't see it being a problem. Adding core.abbrev for the whole test suite is just about not having a big flag day where we change all the tests. Changing one or two tests (and again, I'd be surprised if we even have to do that) doesn't seem like a big deal. -Peff