On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave Borowitz <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dave Borowitz <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Perhaps something like this? >>>> >>>> Seems like it should work. >>>> >>>> Jonathan had suggested there might be some principled reason why >>>> send-pack does not respect config options, and suggested passing it in >>>> as a flag. But that would be more work, certainly, as it would also >>>> have to get passed through git-remote-http somehow. >>> >>> I actually was wondering about exactly the same thing as Jonathan, >>> and that is where my "Perhaps" came from. >> >> I will say, though, as the maintainer of a handful of custom remote >> helpers, I would prefer a solution that does not involve changing the >> implementation of those just to pass this configuration through. > > That is not a controversial part ;-) > >> So my >> vote would be for send-pack to respect the normal config options. > > The thing is what should be included in the "normal" config options. > > The "something like this?" patch was deliberately narrow, including > only the GPG thing and nothing else. But anticipating that the ref > backend would be per repo configuration, and send-pack would want to > read from refs (and possibly write back tracking?), we may want to > prepare ourselves by reading a bit wider than "GPG thing and nothing > else", e.g. git_default_config() or something like that.
Ah, now I understand the question. I have no opinion other than that we shouldn't let discussion about future features prevent us from fixing this obvious signed push bug :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
