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

[Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@google.com>]

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 :)