Jeff King <p...@peff.net> 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.ga87...@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 ;-)
