feat(cli): honor XDG_CONFIG_HOME on macOS

[tessus]

Description

git-cliff ignores the XDG_CONFIG_HOME env var on macOS and only considers Library/Application Support as the config dir, which is primarily used by GUI apps.

This change allows the default config file to be placed in the following 3 locations on macOS:

• XDG_CONFIG_HOME/git-cliff/cliff.toml
• ~/.config/git-cliff/cliff.toml
• ~/Library/Application Support/git-cliff/cliff.toml

The first one found is used.

Motivation and Context

see #1249 (comment)

How Has This Been Tested?

manually and with debug output

Screenshots / Logs (if applicable)

Types of Changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation (no code change)
• Refactor (refactoring production code)
• Other

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have formatted the code with rustfmt.
• I checked the lints with clippy.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 43.31%. Comparing base (9857d86) to head (0f98bf3).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
git-cliff-core/src/config.rs	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
git-cliff/src/lib.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1259      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   43.65%   43.31%   -0.33%     
==========================================
  Files          22       22              
  Lines        1982     1986       +4     
==========================================
- Hits          865      860       -5     
- Misses       1117     1126       +9     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit-tests	43.31% <0.00%> (-0.33%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[tessus]

I don't have rust nightly installed, thus I cannot format the code.

It's the first time I have seen that a project uses nightly to check the formatting. Isn't this a bit fragile? Either way, I can install nightly later today or maybe you can format it if you have it installed.

[orhun]

Looking pretty good! Just some minor points

[orhun]

Yeah, you can format via cargo +nightly fmt. You don't need to switch to a nightly toolchain I believe.

[orhun]

There is some discussion about nightly in #1184

It's not that breaking, unless you're switching to a new edition btw.

[tessus]

Yeah, you can format via cargo +nightly fmt. You don't need to switch to a nightly toolchain I believe.

Hmmm, nope:

$ cargo +nightly fmt
info: syncing channel updates for 'nightly-x86_64-apple-darwin'
info: latest update on 2025-09-19, rust version 1.92.0-nightly (7c275d09e 2025-09-18)
info: downloading component 'cargo'
info: downloading component 'clippy'
info: downloading component 'rust-docs'
info: downloading component 'rust-std'
info: downloading component 'rustc'
info: downloading component 'rustfmt'
info: installing component 'cargo'
info: installing component 'clippy'
info: installing component 'rust-docs'
info: installing component 'rust-std'
info: installing component 'rustc'
info: installing component 'rustfmt'

Anyway, when I ran it, much less was fixed than what was shown in the pipeline. Let's see, if it now runs through.

P.S.: Switching is not necessary, but now it will download the nightly almost every time I use cargo +nightly fmt since nightly is released every day.

[tessus]

Nice, the formatting seems ok. Issues with link validation are not related to this PR. So we should be good.

[orhun]

LGTM, thanks!