From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Borowitz Subject: Re: Bug: send-pack does not respect http.signingkey Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:08:48 -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 Fri Jul 17 00:09:18 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 1ZFrL8-0007F4-FR for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:09:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756032AbbGPWJJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:09:09 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]:32945 "EHLO mail-ie0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756008AbbGPWJI (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:09:08 -0400 Received: by ietj16 with SMTP id j16so65697364iet.0 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:09:07 -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=NCpJSMvS6g+4I40rpUiPdOaOUBWHJqhblCVXa8FPleM=; b=Hp4jkB8MAu2o0JFQcgGNzJLWxzuLeS7hNsKc3unNqffUySa9rCYGb47cYif51q1w8T sIKRhkOwGVMKdkmDdpw6mYZyV9tCggZSiF2K5ZnSCYH2kNt1aB+P/5aeZz1Q6XSYLcz6 E09UfZ+XJKXkFYwp2spFXBoMNmAY8gxwsWENsRAmFwXgORg9amZarsaqgxrBMTsUpMDN IB0Zv7SPeiBBqpFOEzq2DVXFdV840wp5XlgIgYxCzVAhcHuty4rQ6h3iuuOM6usQDVUQ o9VAK0g5FsChE4OyDSuZnbl9sdh9GIGPzR2StLcjpviHoLR6sc1uNvb7Eku92pkVocyV ic0w== 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=NCpJSMvS6g+4I40rpUiPdOaOUBWHJqhblCVXa8FPleM=; b=FPdqC7xMp/V0h8FIFTfxTfeGNTXW4XPXIlQSmBF9WuW/f02WCZKqVZv56JpgR3gJHn 0/8gH8WX/WfGhzylhZpQYYWpgwfwCmoYQp45OEF8JqjdbU3rCIuO8654waFu1kJdYdNH NzVV7T9XmJ0us1cMC592/EM0S7Xu2xLJuiOOQvxuGlUxWShOOFBToUe3LC9Es8P+YXGi ktyJVA8ZIGT1rOHjnc3EombtxHUiEdpVOTFC50Uf2EU2gGBB9KNU/PSKTti4t4b+Flmi dFoIqTgTKJUFdzgTn0Zrrwrvq6dRGBwZSc872TdkT86i9wb+Zn/kwlTMAdGObE5yGkF5 Xkhw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn6gcK0m2OL44bm+H5ofni/Mqbi7BGy8Wv6Z7kLBB2grg6WwWrGjInstVLOFcD4nupNo54F X-Received: by 10.50.43.131 with SMTP id w3mr6928590igl.8.1437084547607; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.4.201 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 15:08:48 -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 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 :)