Mike Hommey writes:
> The gitProxy script gets the port passed. Why would you need different
> scripts for different ports if the port is passed as an argument? Also,
> if it's deliberate, it's widely undocumented.
Fair enough.
A user who has been working around thsi "oversight", would have
rel
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 03:30:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Mike Hommey writes:
>
> > Currently, core.gitProxy doesn't actually match purely on domain names
> > as documented: it also matches ports.
> > ...
> > This per-port behavior seems like an oversight rather than a deliberate
> > choi
Mike Hommey writes:
> Currently, core.gitProxy doesn't actually match purely on domain names
> as documented: it also matches ports.
> ...
> This per-port behavior seems like an oversight rather than a deliberate
> choice, so, make git://kernel.org:port/path call the gitProxy script in
Hmph. Th
Currently, core.gitProxy doesn't actually match purely on domain names
as documented: it also matches ports.
So a core.gitProxy value like "script for kernel.org" doesn't make the
script called for an url like git://kernel.org:port/path, while it is
called for git://kernel.org/path.
This per-port
4 matches
Mail list logo
