On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:08:35PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > I could see somebody arguing that format-patch should respect a project > > preference, since its primary purpose is to communicate your work to the > > rest of the project. > > > > But then you could make a similar argument for other diff options, too. > > This similar argument would be to have a in-tree configuration for > --unified=<N> for example? Yes, that was exactly the option I was thinking of. :) > This triggers two reactions for me: > > (a) We should totally do that. > Different projects have different coding styles (e.g. opening brace > in its own new line or at the end of the condition), which very much impacts > how useful the context is. So, sure, the project knows best what their > preference is. > > (b) It's a rabbit hole to go down. > Any config option that format-patch respects can be argued to be useful > to be preset by a project. So in the end we'd have a ".gitconfig" > file offering > good defaults for people using that project. This may have security > implications. > And it's a lot of work. > > I see your point for (b), I'll think about it more. And yes, I had both of those reactions, too. We've had the "project-level .gitconfig" discussion many times over the years. And it generally comes back to "you can ship a snippet of config and then give people a script which adds it to their repo". -Peff
