Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I am sorry if I am coming across too strongly on this subject, but > > I do think we are overloading alias capability and intruding on a > > domain that should be reserved for our users, not ourselves. > > Well said. The customization feature is for helping users, and we > shouldn't get in their way by adding unnecessary ones ourselves. Nobody is getting in their way, and if they are unnecessary why does *everyone* have aliases? > I wouldn't recommend us to force to our users even "co is for > checkout" that everybody seems to have. They are not being forced. > One thing that might (or might not) help to help users and projects > share the same set of aliases is to make it easier to audit shared > configuration file before inclusion. I wonder if would help to > introduce "include.allow" and "include.block" configuration variables > > [include] ;; or [includeIf "<condition>"] > path = /usr/share/git/contrib/svnlike.alias > allow = alias.* > > that tells us to only pay attention to the configuration keys that > match these 'allow' patterns when reading from the given path. contrib is a black whole where nothing comes out of, so I would rather not doom yet another useful feature to that fate. > But in practice, 'alias' is one of the riskier things you can set in > the configuration file, Why? -- Felipe Contreras
