Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2017, #02; Mon, 6)

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> * sf/putty-w-args (2017-02-01) 5 commits
>  - SQUASH???
>  - connect: Add the envvar GIT_SSH_VARIANT and ssh.variant config
>  - git_connect(): factor out SSH variant handling
>  - connect: rename tortoiseplink and putty variables
>  - connect: handle putty/plink also in GIT_SSH_COMMAND
> 
>  The command line options for ssh invocation needs to be tweaked for
>  some implementations of SSH (e.g. PuTTY plink wants "-P <port>"
>  while OpenSSH wants "-p <port>" to specify port to connect to), and
>  the variant was guessed when GIT_SSH environment variable is used
>  to specify it.  Extend the guess to the command specified by the
>  newer GIT_SSH_COMMAND and also core.sshcommand configuration
>  variable, and give an escape hatch for users to deal with
>  misdetected cases.
> 
>  Stalled?
>  cf. <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702012319460.3496@virtualbox>

The latest messages in that thread are

- your claim that you never said correctness is pused to a back seat (when
  an earlier, detailed mail listed four priorities of your patch review,
  none of which is said correctness, so I did not bother to answer), and

- my answer that suggested to take a break because the conversation turned
  less rational: I had to point out that your objection was not really
  valid in this case.

I now see that you added a SQUASH commit (that was news to me, thank you
very much), and that you seem to still insist that the code should prepare
for possible future changes in the config settings that may actually never
materialize. (And that would have to be handled at a different point, as I
had pointed out, so that suggested preparation would most likely not help
at all.)

In short: unless I read any convincing argument in favor of said SQUASH
commit, I will remain convinced that v3, as submitted, is actually the
best way forward.

Thank you for your attention,
Johannes