On Tuesday, March 19, 2024 5:37 PM, Dirk Gouders wrote: >Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Peff felt that adding `git config --show-hostname-for-includes` was >>> probably overkill, but I'd argue that it is necessary to enable users >>> to deterministically figure out the value to use in their >>> configuration rather than having to grope around in the dark via >>> guesswork and trial-and-error to figure out exactly what works. >>> >>> And the option name doesn't necessarily have to be so verbose; a >>> shorter name, such as `git config --show-hostname` may be good enough. >>> Implementing this option would also obviate the need to implement >>> `test-tool xgethostname` (though, I agree with Junio that `test-tool >>> gethostname` would have been a better, less implementation-revealing >>> name). >> >> Yeah, I like that show-hostname thing (which I do not know if "config" >> is a good home for, though). > >A thought when I was reading this: wouldn't it be enough to document that `uname -n` can be used to get the hostname that should >be used? > >As far as I know this should be POSIX-compliant and uses gethostname(2). As previously pointed out, uname -n and gethostname(2) are not equivalent. uname -n does not (depending on implementation) go to DNS while gethostname(2) goes to DNS first (although apparently glibc may not). This is particularly important in a multi-home situation where more than one IP adapter has a different IP address on the same host, and where DNS does not consider the different addresses to be equivalent (which otherwise could cause problems for reverse lookups). --Randall
