From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] tests: Adjust the configuration for Apache 2.2 Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 00:13:56 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4a15c4e6c35cfb425da568d87e8b20b984e5325c.1462774709.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> <20160509080315.GA14383@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160509142711.GA9552@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org, Lars Schneider To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 10 09:14:07 2016 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 1b01rq-0001Ps-RR for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 09:14:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751282AbcEJHOC (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2016 03:14:02 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:56780 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751274AbcEJHOA (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2016 03:14:00 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1ABECEC; Tue, 10 May 2016 03:13:59 -0400 (EDT) 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=NtoM1ncHkbQJ/SnCwtywSSJYHT8=; b=i+ISMY u0CbGhGhWnIF2nbgBegZUSeoQMwjtTG8u0P7/K0dkA3z/S4gbjC0T+MdxDL/G4Cj /IrLcX6Ftvssv3+tKK19oY22cYgWhm8YhiC5SOhOubzj2G1dOlH19/RtpM4xU9bd FSjaXySR5XxCqu42h3A/BZuMvBzf7Bgn/nbL0= 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=I0Z8GaC7UGa0qWL1GHKmsAgRBENAuSEv /cKGyIhCt3aZ+NEQo8TYjYnuimbfI+Kcr7fiKQQZJ1zrrrZEfVd7PonmR+i/+Khz FcyB0NzlHhTx4FbOjpq4Wke0L2RDr01a4wbNncHyLNwmXASQ8X818NJYCGU4HVR5 2kSbnQ9WHPY= Received: from pb-smtp1. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B15ECEB; Tue, 10 May 2016 03:13:59 -0400 (EDT) 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-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 757B2ECEA; Tue, 10 May 2016 03:13:58 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 10 May 2016 08:53:07 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C39D39B6-167E-11E6-AA97-9A9645017442-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: >> To be honest, I do not quite understand why you call it "ugly hack" >> at all. > > Well, it is convoluted. I would have preferred to say "if this condition > is not met or that condition is not met, fail". Instead I had to say "If` > these two conditions are met, proceed as before. Otherwise, fail." > > And of course its ugliness increased in my mind because I had to go > through so many iterations until it finally worked. Not really > straight-forward a solution. To my eyes without your battle scar, it felt more natural to say "If somebody says he is user $U and gives a password $P, let him in; keep everybody else out" when configuring a server than saying "Fail anybody whose user name is not $U or who says his password is not $P". I can certainly understand if somebody who has spent a lot of effort to make things _fail_ finds the latter more natural.