At 23:16 29/3/2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Filling in the blank at compile time would be possible, but I'm not
>> convinced it's a good idea. Wouldn't the same user be just as puzzled
>> when
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git-htmldocs.git;a=blob_plain;f=git-var.html
>>
>> (or whatever page with a nicer URL arises to replace the old
>> www.kernel.org/... pages) says the fallback is 'vi' and git behaves
>> differently?
>
>I've already rejected this patch once, but that was primarily because the
>patch was not justified with the above "I read everybody else's git uses
>'vi' on the Interweb, and even though my distro's manual page says it uses
>'nano', I didn't bother to read it." scenario.
@Jonathan: I'm really sorry for this confusion... I forgot to mention this
issue WAS taken to upstream already, and it was rejected because build-time
options should be documented by whoever did the changes. So in this case, it's
Debian's task to update their man pags to reflect their build-time changes.
Junio suggested me to send this patch to Debian, that's why I filled the bug in
Debian BTS. It was meant to be a Debian-only patch.
So upstream git man would still say "... and finally 'vi'", since this is
upstream default, and Debian would read "... and finally 'editor'", since this
is the default set by Debian at build-time. For reference, the original patch
included this change, among others:
diff --git a/Documentation/git-var.txt b/Documentation/git-var.txt
index 5317cc2..9c49163 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-var.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-var.txt
@@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ GIT_EDITOR::
`$SOME_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE`, `"C:\Program Files\Vim\gvim.exe"
--nofork`. The order of preference is the `$GIT_EDITOR`
environment variable, then `core.editor` configuration, then
- `$VISUAL`, then `$EDITOR`, and then finally 'vi'.
+ `$VISUAL`, then `$EDITOR`, and then finally a hardcoded fallback
+ editor set at build time, by default 'vi'.
GIT_PAGER::
Text viewer for use by git commands (e.g., 'less'). The value
The other changes were fully accepted upstream, this one was rejected. So I
modified it to Debian's scenario and filled the bug in BTS.
Since this is meant for Debian, no need to be generic about the "fallback
editor set at build time": Debian uses 'editor', so 'editor' should be
explicitly mentioned to correctly reflect git's behavior on a Debian system.
@Junio, I'm really sorry for indirectly bringing this up twice to your
attention. I've never expected Debian maitainers to be so resposinve, it was
awesome fast by reading, analysing and forwarding upstream in a matter of
hours. I'm impressed (and embarasssed by this confusion)
MestreLion
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/debian-bugs-dist
