From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8801F517 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:29:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934454AbeFLQ3R (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:29:17 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:33025 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933378AbeFLQ3Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:29:16 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id z6-v6so20309709wma.0 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=6avfgDhRWpg0Ga4OwQq/FEbVFH4Di4Ib2f5JlMxlic0=; b=fl0XzgBtbUq727fyhG6sP9nJQXQ9sk4w1P121KQ2kUzPGnRZPoP7dHAtiM1XVVaKhN VlqFw3bEuLVRZRDQ4lReVjH3wg2FDucUt8fwXBdOXjOaPtzdwI1idwIBgY17LYkQbVxX CxpnbF/6yDnZ8NTxcOvTceFJ26Ve1+Kqu0A3kMiZ2+Biff1pbnJ8ZBFCrTuzaB01MiPC d300iGK/FsQ4J0gWtOiGw/yPKklIrM0T0gXYhod4+m8CQlXWYIRXppHqpvChK/GsZaNu ak8qNNv7YDZlrV8Ln3neuZmrgWnYoDlg83hhvBTAYyga+1cIz+HUNX8Yb5DRL7m06GXe xgsw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=6avfgDhRWpg0Ga4OwQq/FEbVFH4Di4Ib2f5JlMxlic0=; b=CUUbqv0qDVKXgNtXfUII0dyfP53u6UmVyMLgS3CFN4T8/zPc3rE5JD7scxX9UBUIwF 4UbZQzospcOmdR/GiOov9WHTpXZ+BC6EwVSUqRQA7AnzAppWWsJabaipPNo5kZD660hG u+t7bdayQUi9zjwMYVrww8QFUEh8vftIW4xQqh3kzR41Qpt5t+4YqfOUwC9EEf39cVdl mCXEBrHsB784keS2juB8Bx4r9Mfa9otKMP633Bze/GeuyX3CPacO8oSuIUxXub7+GJo1 hcGxhb6PmHwp2d7hRqtQtenqdgybxAfLG8/uT+CQqDNsaI5BZQ1ivKuIhyR1HLhXijdB OxCw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E23Iat0e64FufhvoBxbabouudcF+A7JkWuS1RvLirnfGZBMd9qF X4l/xK08yZfw8FGecJqHC7k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIihwWR0bfy96HEOkvBOrZUu/NNy6MmVwldpWLkZHs8PI28i4eVSFrupLqJaQ1YEdoQZOryvQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:3e04:: with SMTP id l4-v6mr746746wma.85.1528820954700; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 12-v6sm1307492wmt.19.2018.06.12.09.29.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:29:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Bryan Turner , Brandon Williams , Ben Humphreys , Git Users Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git v2.16.0-rc0 References: <20180103053516.GB87855@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20180608045028.GA17528@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:29:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180608045028.GA17528@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 8 Jun 2018 00:50:28 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > To be honest, I could easily see an argument that I _should_ be setting > GIT_SSH_VARIANT to explain what my wrapper is expecting, even though it > happened to work before. The way I read that message is that the patch proposed in https://public-inbox.org/git/20180103050730.GA87855@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com is "lesser of two evils" in that it is still evil because somebody still has to be asked to explicitly set "variant" anyway but the changing what 'simple' means in the middle would mean those who did not have to set it now have to. So, you should be setting it, even if we adopt the patch, right? ;-) > But it seems like this discussion ended in > favor of calling this a regression that should be fixed, and AFAICT > nothing happened after. So I thought I'd ping and mention one more data > point. My impression is that regression "fix" does not exist---rather, it was a proposal (and it may make a better tradeoff than the status quo) to help users of older OpenSSH by inconveniencing users of different implementations that do -4/6/p differently from OpenSSH. In any case, from where I sit, I am still waiting for this offer by Jonathan > It's good you caught this flaw in the detection. Would something like > the following make sense? If so, I can resend with a commit message > and tests tomorrow or the day after. to be followed up ;-)