Re: Unresolved issues #2

On Sat, 6 May 2006, sean wrote:

Okay, I mistook the scope of you comments to apply to all of git rather than
as a reminder that we can't forget about the toolkit design.  So I take it
you're not at all against git including higher level user commands; just so
long as they're built on top of lower level toolkit commands that other
porcelain can use as well.

Correct. I think we've been able to handle that balance particularly well 
so far. Or maybe the porcelains don't complain enough.

In this particular case I see "git repo-config" as the low level command that
any porcelain can use to access the remotes information and the proposed
"git remotes" as a simple convenience wrapper on top of this.  Of course,
everyone has to agree on the config file format; but that is true whether
the human-friendly wrapper exists or not.

I agree, but my point is that in order for a porcelain to _use_ 
"repo-config", the config file format needs to be defined somewhere, and 
we need to tell people that it's not changing. Are we there yet?

That was my argument for why we should concentrate not on what the user 
wrapper should be named, but why we should look at what the low-level 
meaning of these things are.

Finally, I think "git repo-config" is buggy. Try with this .config file:

	[user]
		name = Bozo the Clown
		email = bozo@circus.com

	[core]
		filemode = true

	[merge]
		summary = true

and then do

	git repo-config core.gitproxy 'dummy example'

and look where it ends up. For me, it ends up at the end, in the "[merge]" 
section, which is obviously bogus.

So we'd really be screwing with porcelain if we made them use this ;)

		Linus