From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB6C1F5AE for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 14:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243278AbhESOzK (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2021 10:55:10 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47216 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241229AbhESOzJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2021 10:55:09 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C129FC06175F for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id v8so13002985qkv.1 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AwMVnFlXRSWy8QanoX/MDscqTrPXkZ73rCrR2KIo7mg=; b=NEFkFUHqpAMSmT3eGQk34LpBYumW+CzNDGxYyRynyAZ9MPD6ng5wVUa6iKAPgR26b8 9EuVxBL5nRWEz1zB8badWWdXCIb7xKHJjOQ0WBI7KMZxUv2o9qRxVeagSEJnGe0kYGii m9bZ3fu2fXqZUsp2fj45yXVTUQMEYuVC1EouJzTF8crh7FSrwk4WUXQIBY9fnkBF5pYO HAF0LswFJ35q8BsfkPA4cp7oH4/p9W/Rw+9xrMj23aT4SRiRMrKkp0RN8CjiPxkQNxg6 on+NJGPBqXP0AC8rRg2vXqiv+1eE36Btge5YYnwbC+qqhNsoPP/I3KQf9eCylY6yZqSm v91g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AwMVnFlXRSWy8QanoX/MDscqTrPXkZ73rCrR2KIo7mg=; b=KOmpqVVX09oDxQ4p2ULwsSq7haxNSVOjqNXDQlhDSQRE3J/Tj8epgXl+InIUqNt97R cwDxBjRL0NkKbs6aoLvVGI6wS/+QnK+FI6YfvXYrMRVuyInXH0PVbRMnt15T9X0FQQpc okGeX1oY5jA73c8m7H+zqhFvGLEsCALb1+iFQzx1TGSaCt7gzMUky1QQwCaz9UHISlXO N8pwe7WdDd6dHs9QXhSKATOGBJ91L0MkNll1CDsfbKFZNDNm4TRGKIcNJxtOVZ75GCoK hs1MIKTzONMBWGcezarCNAi0KxHym2wIu3KNmSR2SaqgFp+4dCQ1JvCCK+UfvN0WqnFF zehg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533IflVANWc7+13wDxgw9rESjpbYfsBL5L4HP8zS51fscLdeO2pL Pkgns+vCRK5Mr+QS7aw8Y8SpSLjKqDfzlw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzjfgb5mwOW77DRVcQcTWW6zBxX6HFsD6AuBnpXpZNH8XEyvV4gYo1v2dOyHmzpaSZdJfwc0Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2149:: with SMTP id m9mr13027306qkm.284.1621436028553; Wed, 19 May 2021 07:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:e72:80a0:a1ee:38d:5766:9f4f? ([2600:1700:e72:80a0:a1ee:38d:5766:9f4f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t203sm15161837qke.83.2021.05.19.07.53.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 May 2021 07:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "remote-curl: fall back to basic auth if Negotiate fails" To: Jeff King Cc: Ben Humphreys , Junio C Hamano , Christopher Schenk , git@vger.kernel.org References: <43035278-5742-607a-57bd-971685deece8@gmail.com> From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 10:53:47 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 5/19/2021 10:14 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:58:50AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > >>> (Note that this isn't a pure revert; the previous commit added a test >>> showing the regression, so we can now flip it to expect_success). >> >> Keeping the test is excellent, because it gives us a way to confirm >> that a second attempt at a fix is at least as good as the first. >> >> The only thing that could improve this situation is to add a test >> that checks the bug that the previous version introduced, so that >> the next round doesn't repeat the mistake. That can be deferred >> because it is more important that we get this fix in time for the >> next release candidate. > > Re-reading what I wrote, I think "the previous commit" may be ambiguous. > The original commit which introduced the bug (and which we're reverting > here) didn't include a test at all. In patch 1/2 of this series (what > I'm calling "the previous commit"), I provided a test which shows the > regression. And now this revert shows that we fixed it (by flipping from > expect_failure to expect_success). > > So I think I've already done what you're asking (if I understand it > correctly). Ah. For some reason my email client didn't thread your messages together, so I saw this as a one-off patch (ignoring the 2/2 part of the message, of course). Thanks, -Stolee