Re: regression: "96b9e0e3 config: treat user and xdg config permission problems as errors" busted git-daemon

[Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>]

Jeff King wrote:

> I could go either way. I think 96b9e0e is the right thing to do
> conceptually, but I kind of doubt it was affecting all that many people.
> And though it's _possible_ for it to be a security problem, I find it
> much more likely that the site admin tries to set some config, gets
> annoyed when it doesn't work, and debugs it. So from a practical
> perspective, 96b9e0e may be doing more harm than good, even though it's
> the right thing.

Ok.  By the way, another commit to blame is v1.7.12.1~2^2~4 (config:
warn on inaccessible files, 2012-08-21), which made it into a warnable
offense instead of just a strange but accepted configuration. ;-)

I'm still leaning toward keeping v1.7.12.1~2^2~4 and 96b9e0e as being
worth it, though I could be easily swayed in the other direction (for
example via a patch by an interested user with documentation that
explains how to debug and makes it unlikely for the behavior to keep
flipping in the future).  Thanks for spelling out the trade-offs.

Sincerely,
Jonathan