On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 10:25:30AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Jeff King wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 01:10:17PM +0200, aleksander.baranowski wrote: > > >> It's just an opinion, but this behaviour is no consistent for me. > >> > >> If it's not the bug it's a feature just let me know. > > > > It's a feature, though I agree that git-config is rather baroque. We're > > mostly stuck with it for reasons of backwards compatibility, though. > > This feels like a dodge. Can we make a list of what is baroque here, > with an eye to fixing it? E.g. if we introduce a new --set option, > then what should its semantics be, to be more intuitive? Maybe baroque isn't the right word. But changing the function of a command drastically based on the number of arguments seems like a source of confusion. I'm fine if somebody wants to champion a new "--set" option, but frankly I'm not sure it's worth the pain at this point. -Peff
