Re: [PATCH 0/3] config: allow disabling config includes

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:

> On 6/11/2026 4:39 AM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 08:59:22AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I entirely understand the problematic case, though. The
>> user points to in-repo config (which we already tell people is a bad
>> idea), and then that config breaks for some reason? Because the include
>> is relative and git is run from another directory?
>
>>> Or: are we venturing into territory where we don't even want to create a
>>> new foot-gun? If there were another way to solve the situation that I'm
>>> facing without these risks, then I'd be open to it. Any ideas?
>> 
>> Yeah, the more I think on it, the more it seems like a foot-gun. Like I
>> said, I'm not sure I entirely understand the use-case. If you could
>> flesh out an example, that might help.
> The case I'm struggling with is that our build system has sandboxing
> restrictions to make sure the build is deterministic based on a certain
> number of inputs. A tool we don't control is calling Git commands and
> these users with included config are getting errors because the build
> is looking at files in the repo that are not registered as build inputs.
>
> Files within $SRCROOT/.git/ are ignored as "internal to Git" but when
> the users update their config to include other files, this error occurs.
>
> I'd much rather that this tool doesn't call Git at all, but I'm unable
> to make that change to a third-party tool. But this environment variable
> would make it possible to disable this behavior. And I'd also rather
> that these users don't use includes in this way, but they are using a
> checked-in file to share aliases and other quality-of-life things when
> a human uses Git, not "critical" settings.
>
> This series is my attempt to see if we can find a solution that enables
> this behavior, but maybe we've found enough concerns with the idea that
> we can push back on the users to say "stop doing that."

It seems that the thread went dark after this message.  Should I
take silence as an agreement, and mark the topic as retracted?

Thanks for an interesting discussion.