From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] archive: re-allow HEAD:Documentation on a remote invocation Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:10:22 -0500 Message-ID: <20120112031022.GC26363@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120110232132.GA29245@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1326283958-30271-1-git-send-email-cmn@elego.de> <7vipkh4oyn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120112025445.GB25365@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vehv54o6v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Carlos =?utf-8?Q?Mart=C3=ADn?= Nieto , git@vger.kernel.org, Albert Astals Cid To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 12 04:10:32 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RlB3e-0001kR-Lk for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:10:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752419Ab2ALDK0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:10:26 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:35626 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751918Ab2ALDKZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:10:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 27492 invoked by uid 107); 12 Jan 2012 03:17:19 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:17:19 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:10:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vehv54o6v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 07:03:36PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > I see it the opposite way. People are clearly using the "$ref:$path" > > syntax. So why would we restrict them from doing so? There are no > > security implications (i.e., they could always just grab $ref and > > extract $path themselves). In my view, ee27ca4a was over-eager in its > > restrictions because I wanted it to be simple and close the hole. Now we > > can take our time adding more code to loosen it. > > Ok, so it is more like a partial revert of whatever we did. In that case, > I'd take CMN's patch to limit the extent of the changes, as it more > closely matches the spirit of the original ee27ca4 (archive: don't let > remote clients get unreachable commits, 2011-11-17) that singled out and > catered to the need of "archive" command alone. It is already part of the > v1.7.8.1 release, so I would prefer a change to be stupid and simple. For a maint release, I am OK with that. In the long term, I'd rather my patches go onto master (either for 1.7.9 or for later), as I think they are the right way to do it. -Peff