On 07/13, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> This triggers two reactions for me: > >> > >> (a) We should totally do that. > > > >> (b) It's a rabbit hole to go down. > > > > 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". > > I see this "project-level .gitconfig" via the .gitmodules file. > See GITMODULES(5), anything except submodule.<name>.path is > just project-level .gitconfig, so in that sense we already threw out the > baby with the bathwater. I think we want to be extra careful to not add > more possible options into the .gitmodules file, now that we established > a strong stance on not shipping a project-level .gitconfig. I'm trying to work on cleaning up the submodule-config a bit and as a result I should be able to make it more difficult to ship more project-level configurations in .gitmodules -- Brandon Williams
