Re: Recommend these .gitconfig settings for git integrity.

[Karl Fogel]

Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
>*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).

Yup.  Those are all reasonable arguments.

>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.

Understood.

I don't have time to find the appropriate git maintainers' forum myself, but if 
I did, I would post a link to this thread there and say "See, if you folks 
don't set this to the obvious default in upstream git, you're just going to 
cause this discussion to happen on the dev list of every git-using project out 
there.  Please do the needful!" :-)