From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
To: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: Christophe Lohr <christophe.lohr@cegetel.net>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Confusion with git config list --show-origin
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2026 21:01:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <asAbjl-3IIbGKGkA@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ar3_jVZPdgKSZJF2@pks.im>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2129 bytes --]
On 2026-10-01 at 06:37:01, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 02:36:20PM +0200, Christophe Lohr wrote:
> > Hello,
> > The 'git config list --show-origin' command is very useful for
> > understanding where the settings come from.
> > This command lists the files involved, specifying the full path for each
> > one,
> > except for '.git/config'
> >
> > This gives the impression that there is a '.git/' directory in the current
> > working directory, even though it isn't located here but higher up in the
> > directory tree.
> > So, may I suggest, that this command display the full path to the
> > .git/config file used by the current git command?
>
> I agree that this is quite confusing. I'm a bit torn on whether the
> consequence of that is that the resulting path should be an absolute
> one. But at the very least, in the case where we're not in the root of
> the Git repository there is a good case to be made that we should adapt
> the relative path to be relative to the current working directory and
> not to the top-level directory of the repository.
>
> One thing I wonder about though is whether that would break any users
> out there. I think it's unlikely that any scripts out there parse the
> output. But if they do, they may have long since learned that the
> repository-local file is always specified relative to the top-level
> directory of the repository. And if we were to change that now, then
> those scripts may break.
>
> As I said, I think the risk of breakage is comparatively low. But I'd be
> curious to learn what others think about this.
I think it would be fine to specify it as an absolute path, provided
it's canonicalized (symlink-free). We already do that for other paths
in the output, so callers already have to deal with that case.
There is certainly the possibility of breakage, but I agree it's likely
low. It's also not hard to do something like `git rev-parse
--path-format=absolute --git-path config` to find out which file is the
local file among multiple.
--
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 325 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-02 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-29 12:36 Confusion with git config list --show-origin Christophe Lohr
2026-10-01 6:37 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-10-02 21:01 ` brian m. carlson [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=asAbjl-3IIbGKGkA@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net \
--to=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
--cc=christophe.lohr@cegetel.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox