From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Recommend these .gitconfig settings for git integrity. Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:56:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87y4b4gnf9.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <87a8nlfqj9.fsf@red-bean.com> <83h9ht1o8q.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvrle8ho.fsf@red-bean.com> <56AE8126.9090708@cs.ucla.edu> <87wpqo77yc.fsf@red-bean.com> <87bn80ifmh.fsf@wanadoo.es> <56AF896A.3090104@cs.ucla.edu> <877fioidb4.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87egcw716d.fsf@red-bean.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1454360225 12911 80.91.229.3 (1 Feb 2016 20:57:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 20:57:05 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 01 21:56:55 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aQLWo-00031W-O7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:56:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54079 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQLWh-0001st-KE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:56:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50315) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQLWU-0001sL-9d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:56:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQLWP-0000hF-A2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:56:34 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45553) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQLWP-0000gk-2l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:56:29 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aQLWN-0002Uq-51 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:56:27 +0100 Original-Received: from 1.red-83-38-42.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.38.42.1]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:56:27 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 1.red-83-38-42.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 21:56:27 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 60 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1.red-83-38-42.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ygurMguvck1E0E6eiBblmWlgs10= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:199143 Archived-At: Karl Fogel writes: > Hmmm. I know of no way to resolve what is essentially a difference in > taste. It would bother me if emacs/autogen.sh made changes to my > global ~/.gitconfig, but it doesn't bother me if it makes changes to > emacs/.git/config. Whereas you are bothered in both cases. emacs/.git/config is in my machine, I work with that repo and if something breaks, I must deal with it, not you. Even if the changes themselves does not cause any breakage, as soon as I have some other issue and look at .git/config I'll see those changes; finding those settings there will cause suspicion and distract me from fixing the real problem. > Emacs's autogen.sh already does things that cause a permanent > difference in the behavior of, say, the 'configure' and 'make' tools > when run in the Emacs tree. Why should autogen.sh not do the same for > the 'git' tool when run in the Emacs tree? *If* the config changes are *required*, I'm all for it, giving the developer a prominent notice. But what is at stake here is something very different. You found something that looks like a "something sensible for the cautious" feature type, and Paul is imposing it on everyone's Emacs repo. The Emacs developement doesn't need that setting at all, nor it affects the regular Emacs hacker, who only communicates with the upstream Emacs repo. And if you worry about the possibility of the upstream Emacs repo being tainted, just enable the checking on some build bots (and/or on your machine). > Is there some reason why > the Emacs developers as a group can't decide that integrity-checking > should be turned on for git data transfers? The Emacs developers as a group are entitled to have a say on what is accepted on the upstream repo, but never on unilaterally changing how my Emacs repo is configured. > After all, if the > developer group decided that some sort of integrity checking should be > turned on by default for the build process itself, we wouldn't have > any problem with that. In other words, how is this really different? See above. > However, I'm pretty sure you thought of all those arguments already, > and are just not convinced by them. It's Paul's commits in question, > so I don't feel I'm in the hot seat for deciding whether or not to > revert them :-). But FWIW I think they are a good idea, and are > consistent with principles we'd use for deciding how any other tool > should behave when invoked on the Emacs source tree. I think that, given how it was implemented, this change is bad on itself, and establishes a bad precedent. See my reply to Paul for some ideas about how to improve the implementation. Requiring from the user an informed consent is the right thing here. After all, if you convince the user about the convenience of those settings, maybe he will apply them on his other repos, which is a much better outcome from your POV, I guess. [snip]