From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] upload-pack: send shallow info over stdin to pack-objects
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:23:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqeh2arsbi.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8AcYBXi6LjyJDeEnogPTXfqYXqijXaLY=bUgNnd4cT_Fg@mail.gmail.com> (Duy Nguyen's message of "Sat, 8 Mar 2014 07:08:05 +0700")
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> On the receive-pack side, the comment at the bottom of
>>>> preprare_shallow_update() makes it clear that, if we wanted to use
>>>> hooks, we cannot avoid having the proposed new shallow-file in a
>>>> temporary file, which is unfortunate. Do we have a similar issue on
>>>> hooks on the upload-pack side?
>>>
>>> No. I don't think we have hooks on upload-pack.
>>
>> The question was not only about "do we happen to work OK with the
>> current code?" but about "are we closing the door for the future?"
>>
>> If we ever need to add hooks to upload-pack, with the updated
>> approach, its operation will not be affected by the temporary
>> shallow file tailored for this specific customer. Which I think is
>> a good thing in general.
>>
>> But at the same time, it means that its operation cannot be
>> customized for the specific customer, taking into account what they
>> lack (which can be gleaned by looking at the temporary shallow
>> information). I do think that it is not a big downside, but that is
>> merely my knee-jerk reaction.
>
> When upload-pack learns about hooks, I think we'll need to go back
> with --shallow-file, perhaps we a secure temporary place to write in.
> I don't see another way out. Not really sure why upload-pack needs
> customization though. The only case I can think of is to prevent most
> users from fetching certain objects, but that does not sound
> realistic..
I was more thinking along the lines of logging.
But you are right that we can easily revisit --shallow-file
interface later.
> Of course.. So what should we do with this? Go with this "no temp
> file" approach and deal with hooks when they come, or prepare now and
> introduce a secure temp. area?
I was rather hoping that we did not have to worry about temporary
files. This patch solves the issue for the service people would
expect to be read-only the most, and it is a good step in the right
direction. So let's follow through with the approach and not worry
about "secure temporary" for now.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-10 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-27 7:13 [PATCH] upload-pack: allow shallow fetching from a read-only repository Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2014-02-27 9:04 ` Jeff King
2014-02-27 9:10 ` [PATCH] shallow: verify shallow file after taking lock Jeff King
2014-02-27 9:22 ` Jeff King
2014-02-27 10:18 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-02-27 10:56 ` [PATCH] shallow: use stat_validity to check for up-to-date file Jeff King
2014-02-27 10:11 ` [PATCH] upload-pack: allow shallow fetching from a read-only repository Duy Nguyen
2014-02-27 11:25 ` [PATCH] shallow: automatically clean up shallow tempfiles Jeff King
2014-03-04 12:30 ` [PATCH v2] upload-pack: allow shallow fetching from a read-only repository Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2014-03-04 18:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-05 12:43 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-03-05 19:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-06 8:49 ` [PATCH v3] upload-pack: send shallow info over stdin to pack-objects Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
2014-03-06 18:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-06 23:13 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-03-07 18:27 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-08 0:08 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-03-10 15:23 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2014-03-07 1:24 ` Duy Nguyen
2014-03-07 18:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2014-03-11 12:59 ` [PATCH v4] " Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqeh2arsbi.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).