From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8AE203EC for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934367AbcLMSms (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:42:48 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:50373 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932250AbcLMSmr (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:42:47 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE0656E8C; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:42:41 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=nzHKy+QKEW+6N1P9PHC/pvkUqw0=; b=lKFo+x ZGF3FNeQRoR0Qw59deKnLhD3RGCRgyyunaKPWNjs3c+Wb0UX23JfnNtmjsJRrIC7 X5ZjBR85ExFgxu9toiYWKldxTXdLPdrhD5Rnj8uux7WW1LppxOYN6GWcKA4AwfSU 7fOQQ8VhmO7XN5dzPf3W+HM+sBhjBUVzVQbA8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=GO1A0t9GSnaj7V7JRskXSWdzLCINj+mQ 9uJgkYZ174XrLqBz6H6yG+/Cesy3V3FkrOE9lVM/iyLRdUg/e47p30HvmZL6tqQk KarCcd4uWclhuBu/LgJbuvJTEoKYJWM1XPrw80jmRBX/hGDOqB6O/PFnZ0nOqTwN HLoHnYKoPuY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B6756E8B; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:42:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8EC156E83; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:42:40 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Johannes Sixt , Klaus Ethgen , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] handling alternates paths with colons References: <20161209140215.qlam6bexm5irpro2@ikki.ethgen.ch> <20161209152219.ehfk475vdg4levop@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161210085133.2pnkz6eqlxoxdckg@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161212194929.bdcihf7orjabzb2h@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161213115018.quulwlheycjtlsub@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161213181755.wrgu6drm45v7xhnl@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:42:39 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20161213181755.wrgu6drm45v7xhnl@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:17:55 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: ED36632A-C163-11E6-ABC9-B2917B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > Right, but we also support relative paths via environment variables. I > don't think that changes the conclusion though. I'm not convinced > relative paths via the environment aren't slightly insane in the first > place, Sorry, a triple negation is above my head. "relative paths in env aren't insane" == "using relative paths is OK" and you are not convinced that it is the case, so you are saying that you think relative paths in env is not something that is sensible? > given the discussion in 37a95862c (alternates: re-allow relative > paths from environment, 2016-11-07). And they'd probably start with > "../" as well. Yeah. In any case, there is a potential regression but the chance is miniscule---the user has to have been using a relative path that begins with a double-quote in the environment or in alternates file.