From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] honour *_ASKPASS for querying username and for querying further actions like unknown certificates Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:56:55 -0800 Message-ID: <7vlipx68dk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <4EC52508.9070907@tu-clausthal.de> <4EC65DE4.90005@tu-clausthal.de> <4ED0CE8B.70205@tu-clausthal.de> <20111130064401.GC5317@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4EF907F1.1030801@tu-clausthal.de> <4EF9D8B9.9060106@tu-clausthal.de> <4EF9EBF4.7070200@tu-clausthal.de> <4EF9ED24.2040902@tu-clausthal.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Narebski , Jeff King To: Sven Strickroth X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 27 21:57:04 2011 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 1Rfe51-0001fZ-5l for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:57:03 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751236Ab1L0U47 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:56:59 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:63746 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750932Ab1L0U45 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:56:57 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589AD5112; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:56:57 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=GggFPg6Uad5oTilEInTtiTGrm/k=; b=umYGsJ krK9klAy1SBCOx9QlMQP1lTfRDH7X4pv1ZOmgVljbP3yhHSHMwfHoBSMZCMUS6RL ZdSV/9/M8yexiS2+BswSe8YLkgQH1vBn3KI07iKQkRDlVhDG2265FFcgZfG2ZLIa OGZSLuKRBukQnHMR6Bq8zD7LC3unhL1apo4zM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=xSjDb8w5aKEi0KDJVNoOqqih8SgR1QER j1sfnEssjmeEqo2NbJXH7LEF6B7iI3xfMUx8xAMvN48UdFgc0TG+kROmWUKO99aN AIuo/e6cAt0katjjjwbt7A/cTiogrEaK7rLvRd2OWV4iWAoXzIXYWKtB923NALUv rH4jLtR6K9k= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510825111; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:56:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [76.102.170.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA6BD5110; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:56:56 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4EF9ED24.2040902@tu-clausthal.de> (Sven Strickroth's message of "Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:07:00 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 500A0EC0-30CD-11E1-A37D-9DB42E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Sven Strickroth writes: > git-svn reads usernames (and other stuff) from an interactive terminal. > This behavior cause GUIs to hang waiting for git-svn to complete (http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/issues/detail?id=967). (style) Wrap the line perhaps after "to complete". Does the above mean "GUIs hang, until the user goes back to the terminal and authenticates"? Where is the "interactive terminal" connected when running the GUI? With that bit information, I think the above is a decent problem description (i.e. "what problem is this change trying to solve? is it worth solving?"). The second paragraph (missing) should then discuss what approach is taken by the proposed patch to solve that problem. Something like Instead of using hand-rolled prompt-response code that only works with the interactive terminal, use the git_prompt() method introduced in the earlier commit. would suffice (I didn't check what method name you used, though). > Also see commit 56a853b62c0ae7ebaad0a7a0a704f5ef561eb795. I checked that commit, and what you wanted to say is unclear. Are you saying this patch attempts to fix the breakage by that commit? That commit tried to go in a right direction but did not go far enough and you are trying to enhance it? Somerthing else? Which means that you shouldn't have said "Also see..." at all and instead directly said what you wanted to say here.