On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what your script does exactly, but in general I think the
> right thing for most scripts is _not_ to use a specific-file option
> like --global.
>
> If the script is looking up a config value on behalf of a user, it
> probably makes sense for it to use the normal config lookup procedure
> (system, global, repo, command-line), which also enables includes by
> default. That would make it consistent with internal git config
> lookups (e.g., user.name probably only ever appears in global config,
> but you _can_ override it at the repo level if you want to).
This is intended for git newbies (and big company => infinite supply of
them), and also allows them to conveniently nuke the repo and start from
a fresh copy, so it makes sense to make the script inspect/tweak the
global settings. If knowing git "well enough" was an assumed
requirement, I'd definitely do the normal thing.
> I know that's mostly orthogonal to what we're discussing, but I'd feel
> more convinced that enabling "--includes" with "--global" is useful if
> I thought that "--global" was useful in the first place outside of a
> few narrow debugging cases.
Ok. Perhaps I overestimated the utility of --global anyway, given the
above...
--
((x=>x(x))(x=>x(x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!