Re: Bug: send-pack does not respect http.signingkey

[Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com>]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps something like this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like it should work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan had suggested there might be some principled reason why
>>>>> send-pack does not respect config options, and suggested passing it in
>>>>> as a flag. But that would be more work, certainly, as it would also
>>>>> have to get passed through git-remote-http somehow.
>>>>
>>>> I actually was wondering about exactly the same thing as Jonathan,
>>>> and that is where my "Perhaps" came from.
>>>
>>> I will say, though, as the maintainer of a handful of custom remote
>>> helpers, I would prefer a solution that does not involve changing the
>>> implementation of those just to pass this configuration through.
>>
>> That is not a controversial part ;-)
>>
>>> So my
>>> vote would be for send-pack to respect the normal config options.
>>
>> The thing is what should be included in the "normal" config options.
>>
>> The "something like this?" patch was deliberately narrow, including
>> only the GPG thing and nothing else.  But anticipating that the ref
>> backend would be per repo configuration, and send-pack would want to
>> read from refs (and possibly write back tracking?), we may want to
>> prepare ourselves by reading a bit wider than "GPG thing and nothing
>> else", e.g. git_default_config() or something like that.
>
> Ah, now I understand the question. I have no opinion other than that
> we shouldn't let discussion about future features prevent us from
> fixing this obvious signed push bug :)

Should I formally send a patch with your configuration one-liner?