From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Borowitz Subject: Re: Bug: send-pack does not respect http.signingkey Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:25:09 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: git To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 21 21:25:52 2015 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 1ZHdAl-0001oQ-Ns for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:25:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933826AbbGUTZb (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:25:31 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]:33607 "EHLO mail-ig0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933665AbbGUTZ3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:25:29 -0400 Received: by igbpg9 with SMTP id pg9so71752011igb.0 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:25:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=2X0l4HTD2zmZNGt5/Ff9ijy+Yw08iJEXNhjKk/8pDd4=; b=JJHY/7qEN4cgSsEsPDZ9VQgstC9FgvFA9JNz7thu0bHuoX1BMSynrfh3V9G6lfOTWo 4AM72gk/aHOTPP2IQzkwouOXQRtRwctHfhvyK5KfcYB6JoebxjxRK9PM6YKpwJnuHoee 6tEIVYhLwb7HpPXAoBJdyiEG65fP9QjVGnYFXbY0p6yCCaGePpVPB67zKpC8QcjR4s5Z X1wm0fXi6XwRp6XsWdkhya7aKdf17s69QglNVJQX0W8ZljO8xUFtBhB6aKIF/j3IfETO ZSnfRrGgysu80FuciiJ+cGiTg6AcHXlSAiFPBh4WsTuy/ozXFbWg+j3d+xCgPHFFcIjs zopA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=2X0l4HTD2zmZNGt5/Ff9ijy+Yw08iJEXNhjKk/8pDd4=; b=ESq8ohtHIQldWOYkWuDhaLLV6KKZvPP34nsUUFkwM2U+YEaBCuSPTJrKppU2y9KQgU 0a2ro7dtCY1M7NfehJLlVRakfJD8ZMtvMmox1ZCs9NkKUVGsYYPZ1/XOy2EjhOfKgedc aur5HcXWuAv1hJtC5aOxyM1yI6C51gxHGQZesH2JrAcrL9pJeLTpkDnN0oruFPACC5W/ lWeTS12exRXZYTgQlZV3PN9Idw1Kl/78/WFpdLrqDL3Iy0o9GxKdP8rMRy3p2sTzCRkX L+hyfFVClNYzKezpf3e4vrJOBYXEmZkmoaOfCzDoRgOYMmKMAoz0PuXE15PXLRK3qPl5 lqqg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnjv/BY2Ct6hFtBVJKUa2h4Jwbg0qIOt7FSLeN6e133RK1N68l4B2uAonHFfu0Lu9AjcjGZ X-Received: by 10.107.39.83 with SMTP id n80mr45384022ion.129.1437506729071; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.4.201 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:25:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Dave Borowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Dave Borowitz writes: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> Dave Borowitz writes: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Junio C Hamano 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?