Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] credential.c: fix credential reading with regards to CR/LF

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Junio,

On Fri, 2 Oct 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > Therefore, I spent some time pouring over the commit message. This is my
> > current version:
> >
> >     credential: treat CR/LF as line endings in the credential protocol
> >
> >     This fix makes using Git credentials more friendly to Windows users: it
> >     allows a credential helper to communicate using CR/LF line endings ("DOS
> >     line endings" commonly found on Windows) instead of LF-only line endings
> >     ("Unix line endings").
> >
> >     Note that this changes the behavior a bit: if a credential helper
> >     produces, say, a password with a trailing Carriage Return character,
> >     that will now be culled even when the rest of the lines end only in Line
> >     Feed characters, indicating that the Carriage Return was not meant to be
> >     part of the line ending.
> >
> >     In practice, it seems _very_ unlikely that something like this happens.
> >     Passwords usually need to consist of non-control characters, URLs need
> >     to have special characters URL-encoded, and user names, well, are names.
> >
> >     So let's change the credential machinery to accept both CR/LF and LF
> >     line endings.
> >
> >     While we do this for the credential helper protocol, we do _not_ do
> >     adjust `git credential-cache--daemon` (which won't work on Windows,
> >     anyway, because it requires Unix sockets) nor `git credential-store`
> >     (which writes the file `~/.git-credentials` which we consider an
> >     implementation detail that should be opaque to the user, read: we do
> >     expect users _not_ to edit this file manually).
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I am not Peff, but I was also drawn into the same confusion by the
> "we never see an empty line" red herring.

:-)

> There are some micronits, but the above made a lot easier to
> understand (I think you could even add "quit\r" bit to make it even
> easier to understand) than the original description.

Okay, I incorporated a comment talking about `quit\r` and will submit
a new iteration right now.

Thanks,
Dscho