From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/10] support pager.* for aliases Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:37:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20110819033733.GB2993@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110818215820.GA7767@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110818215909.GA7799@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v8vqq72kp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Steffen Daode Nurpmeso , Ingo =?utf-8?Q?Br=C3=BCckl?= To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 19 05:37:59 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QuFuA-00086y-TC for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:37:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751806Ab1HSDhi (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:37:38 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:57616 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751685Ab1HSDhh (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:37:37 -0400 Received: (qmail 28067 invoked by uid 107); 19 Aug 2011 03:38:17 -0000 Received: from 99-189-169-83.lightspeed.snjsca.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.189.169.83) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:38:17 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:37:34 -0700 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v8vqq72kp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 03:54:46PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Until this patch, doing something like: > > > > git config alias.foo log > > git config pager.foo /some/specific/pager > > > > would not respect pager.foo at all. > > Is it a good thing? Looks too confusing and I am having a hard time to > decide if this is "just because we could" or "because we need to be able > to do this for such and such reasons". I don't have a particular use for it myself. However, I don't see what's confusing about it. Would would you expect the above commands to do with respect to paging? I think the behavior after my patch does what users will expect, whether they have configured pager.foo, pager.log, or nothing. -Peff