From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36561FD99 for ; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754444AbcHWVsr (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:48:47 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:60013 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753294AbcHWVsq (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:48:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 17736 invoked by uid 109); 23 Aug 2016 21:41:23 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:41:23 +0000 Received: (qmail 28690 invoked by uid 111); 23 Aug 2016 21:41:26 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:41:26 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:41:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 17:41:20 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: David Glasser , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: git-config(1) should mention `git -c` Message-ID: <20160823214120.ekaq4mul3pamweej@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20160822185709.izdfbkbsmeip5u7c@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:16:18AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > That seems like the most sensible place, as that is where we should > > cover the order of reading and precedence. Perhaps FILES should be > > renamed to SOURCES or something (though I do not recall if we are > > restricted to "usual" manpage section names or not). > > > > Arguably this is not about git-config the program at all, but the > > general concept of "configuration for git", because the precedence rules > > apply equally to all of the git programs that read config. > > True, but that argument leads us to say git(1) is the best place ;-) Sort of. I agree it is a good place to mention the precedence, but... > If the user wants to know "how does the configuration values get > read?", and wishes not having to go around fishing for the > information in multiple places (and I think that is a reasonable > thing to wish for), I think adding it to the FILES section of > git-config(1) is a better option than inventing a separate > gitconfig(7), which would still require the user to consult two > places. The flip side of "fishing for the information in multiple places" is "I know it is somewhere in git-config(1), but I have to wade through a bunch of cruft about git-config command-line options to find it". So I'd argue that the concept of config (overview, precedence, file syntax, list of options) could be separate from both git-config(1) and from git(1), and that both of those places could point to it. That introduces a level of indirection which is annoying the first time ("I am reading git-config(1), but now I have to jump to another manpage") but helpful the other times ("I know I want config concepts, not the config tool; I can immediately jump to the right place"). Anyway. Just my two cents on the matter. I think we can improve David's complaint without anything so drastic. -Peff