From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Lehmann Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2013, #02; Mon, 14) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:53:30 +0200 Message-ID: <525ED29A.1020507@web.de> References: <20131014184524.GW9464@google.com> <20131015001231.GA9464@google.com> <20131015191656.GD9464@google.com> <525D9A96.6050209@web.de> <20131015200528.GE9464@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Anders Kaseorg To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 16 19:53:40 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VWVHv-000636-Ab for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:53:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761699Ab3JPRxe (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:53:34 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:56608 "EHLO mout.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761692Ab3JPRxc (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:53:32 -0400 Received: from [192.168.178.41] ([91.3.180.150]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb001) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0Lud4y-1VwjJj03Bg-00zjqo for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:53:31 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 In-Reply-To: <20131015200528.GE9464@google.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:JdUu1HPFBRv2kOy1pkuAJYnqY75slPaQBoJ00QsZhPpwI0+TGfW pxPj7iF0VDxOHC0ykLYM9bz4fQvOMbk2NhPEE5wONeMlEfy8w+ptkd4zre7KVQ0af6kbHFr dZw/KMGRJ0eRvr1VHkIqPJU+bkO6uYulgugzhgEvxvWNmAcWK1a+KVT24Vs4HWwv7ZWTvYv GBfC7uKpY+ZD5DMZSpudQ== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 15.10.2013 22:05, schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > Jens Lehmann wrote: >> Am 15.10.2013 21:16, schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > >>> So I suspect this will fix more scripts than it breaks, though it may >>> still break some. :/ >> >> Hmm, I'm really not sure if we should do this or not. > > What convinced me was Anders's observation that the current behavior > can have very bad consequences if a script is passing untrusted input > in multiple arguments to git submodule foreach. Ok, that makes sense. >> And maybe only change that on a major version bump where people should >> not be terribly surprised about such a change in behavior and are more >> likely to read release notes? > > Ok with me, but please don't make it 2.0. :) But we don't want to wait for 3.0, no? ;-)