From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Recommend these .gitconfig settings for git integrity. Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:09:14 -0600 Message-ID: <87egcw716d.fsf@red-bean.com> 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> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1454350175 14738 80.91.229.3 (1 Feb 2016 18:09:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:09:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?=5C1?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 01 19:09:26 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 1aQIuk-0003X1-LB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 19:09:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53635 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQIuj-0007sF-TK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 13:09:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38677) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQIuf-0007rs-Ja for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 13:09:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQIub-0005ql-Ih for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 13:09:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]:32994) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aQIub-0005qh-DC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 13:09:17 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id f81so165965835iof.0 for ; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:09:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:reply-to:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=a9e87tP2F0eepDtnpMftZosnUygEr5inR9eJ1WdY1jU=; b=K6x0zK5yc0rdjVoWp3Iwybye9mPUA8C1YYlDuM4JjgV5jvISuifRQ2dTDJzwvrlMyH ctoSg9T299iQjyRIcC89pdYK6vKujlrbmq6RcFj/L0BvuL33y98TGI8hC7mJg/u71Yqy 61kQEx20n2Mv6E7xpRrOOWaiiTEcbKJiiilmgKCjGQIN7BWJuPVD9fRKACP6nyaTQD7H azEAPzjKL+ymKgiDXGOf1gXpYRniMMkU8xBMrTACi+hjnA79t3hMdaO1rR5PN7e95GyC Ha5AMRSzlYowEptClYV/kMM9PLifVsvwm8VeDZE2wcvQrVhEUroHxaJYkxlfQ2ZoznaH AUOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:reply-to :date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=a9e87tP2F0eepDtnpMftZosnUygEr5inR9eJ1WdY1jU=; b=GidvXuExUTwtzqiDLry4S4CEU3OhT4ncqqjxqdcLGmsGFBRyUvx+kVAR8tnj1MmjWC lKmiij/sbPp1LCkxuy69zxRGJ4LXL/N1hLCllZsgsocDQNEJncogWed9dPKyW4N7HEUb vqBMwyJblVEdJhYn+BEo5zQJ4S8J3eHQjeqwhPy/WszJfZgI4wENMVXZBkZ5nYJyulGq aG0/2xFRtEwH1NXFxT6PhyRMKdgFyQFZooGn4yyILa5RthajU1Y/K+YgoeTgFAWz5ZcI Rv0BmuZsDD/I1fOUGPF5ZZGn7jADNthNJzl4RNaGdvgLwL1JFmEk0LN+jdB4byDdvkW6 KP0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSk8y8K2aB+CbuP3STA3DUPK8Tur9Ime4sa+Pb0ec3iZHakN6Ro/GOqU1IbSNRpTw== X-Received: by 10.107.151.213 with SMTP id z204mr19434218iod.43.1454350156994; Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:09:16 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from floss (74-92-190-114-Illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.92.190.114]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e134sm11996526ioe.6.2016.02.01.10.09.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:09:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <877fioidb4.fsf@wanadoo.es> (=?utf-8?Q?=5C1?= Fuentes"'s message of "Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:51:43 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.90 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230 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:199133 Archived-At: =C3=93scar Fuentes writes: >There is nothing Emacs-specific on those settings, so this argument is >not valid. > >Paul and Karl: I know you are doing this on good faith and I appreciate >your efforts, but this approach of changing the .git/config file (and >the emacs' .git/config file is also on my system, Karl) is a bit >worrying. If the change produces some side-effect, it's the user who is >in charge of investigating what's going on and imagine his surprise >when, after looking at .git/config in desperation, he sees it edited. > >>> The Emacs build process has no bussiness on sneaking config changes that >>> affects how tools work on my system >> >> Yes, the developer should be told. This was already done for Git >> hooks, but I forgot to do it for Git configuration settings. I fixed >> that by installing the attached patch into emacs-25. > >Thanks, but I would prefer a `make' target or script and a mention on >CONTRIBUTING about all the good it will cause if the user ever decides >to execute it. Hmmm. I know of no way to resolve what is essentially a difference in tast= e. It would bother me if emacs/autogen.sh made changes to my global ~/.git= config, but it doesn't bother me if it makes changes to emacs/.git/config. = Whereas you are bothered in both cases. 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 Ema= cs tree. Why should autogen.sh not do the same for the 'git' tool when run= in the Emacs tree? Is there some reason why the Emacs developers as a gro= up can't decide that integrity-checking should be turned on for git data tr= ansfers? After all, if the developer group decided that some sort of integ= rity 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? However, I'm pretty sure you thought of all those arguments already, and ar= e 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 :-). B= ut 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 Em= acs source tree. (In any case, the documentation changes I'm making are not affected by this= .) Best regards, -Karl