RE: [PATCH v3 0/2] Add hostname condition to includeIf

><rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, March 19, 2024 5:37 PM, Dirk Gouders wrote:
>>>Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Peff felt that adding `git config --show-hostname-for-includes` was
>>>>> probably overkill, but I'd argue that it is necessary to enable
>>>>> users to deterministically figure out the value to use in their
>>>>> configuration rather than having to grope around in the dark via
>>>>> guesswork and trial-and-error to figure out exactly what works.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the option name doesn't necessarily have to be so verbose; a
>>>>> shorter name, such as `git config --show-hostname` may be good enough.
>>>>> Implementing this option would also obviate the need to implement
>>>>> `test-tool xgethostname` (though, I agree with Junio that
>>>>> `test-tool gethostname` would have been a better, less
>>>>> implementation-revealing name).
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I like that show-hostname thing (which I do not know if "config"
>>>> is a good home for, though).
>>>
>>>A thought when I was reading this: wouldn't it be enough to document
>>>that
>> `uname -n` can be used to get the hostname that should
>>>be used?
>>>
>>>As far as I know this should be POSIX-compliant and uses gethostname(2).
>>
>> As previously pointed out, uname -n and gethostname(2) are not

>> uname -n does not (depending on implementation) go to DNS while
>> gethostname(2) goes to DNS first (although apparently glibc may not).
>> This is particularly important in a multi-home situation where more
>> than one IP adapter has a different IP address on the same host, and
>> where DNS does not consider the different addresses to be equivalent
>> (which otherwise could cause problems for reverse lookups).
>
>Thanks for the explanation, I did not notice this has already been

>
>Interestingly, I strace(1)'ed uname -n here on Linux and noticed it uses
>uname(2) (what else?) and not gethostname(2), so it seems I was completely
>wrong.
>
>Sorry for disturbing the discussion.