On 05 Feb 2016, at 12:22, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:13:04PM +0100, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:

quoted

On 2/5/2016 9:42, larsxschneider@gmail.com wrote:

quoted

Teach 'git config' the '--sources' option to print the source
configuration file for every printed value.

Yay, not being able to see where a config setting originates from has
bothered me in the past, too. So thanks for working on this.

However, the naming of the '--sources' option sounds a bit misleading to me.
It has nothing to do with source code. So maybe better name it '--origin',
or even more verbose '--show-origin' or '--show-filename'?

I think he inherited the "--sources" name from me. :) I agree it could
be better. I think "--show-filename" is not right as there are
non-filename cases.  Just "--origin" sounds funny to me, perhaps because
of git's normal use of the word "origin".

I like "--show-origin" the best of the ones suggested.

I understand your reasoning and I agree that "--show-origin" is better than
"--sources". However, I think just the word "origin" could be misleading in 
this context because people associate it with Git remotes. How about
"--show-config-origin" then? Or would that be too verbose?

Thanks,
Lars