Re: RFE: version-controlled merge rules
On December 28, 2018 6:35:23 AM PST, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 36 quoted lines
>Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> The main issue I see is that this would make it a little *too* easy
>to
>> run arbitrary code on the user's machine. Build systems often
>already
>> lead to that, but users are more familiar with the risks for build
>> than for version control.
>>
>> See [1] for some related discussion.
>>
>> That said, using the include.path feature (see git-config(1)), it's
>> possible to do something similar:
>>
>> [include]
>> path = ../.gitconfig
>>
>> Thanks and hope that helps,
>
>The issue the arrangement to specify what kind of files they are in
>the attribute system and to specify what exact commands to be run in
>the configuration addresses is twofold. The security issue is one
>and poking a hole with include.path mechanism is probably OK as
>there is end-user consent, but I tend to agree that a similar risk
>already exists by a project shipping Makefile et al.
>
>There is the other side of the issue.
>
>The arrangement allows project not to be monoculture by leaving the
>exact command sequence to use on the kind of files (specified by the
>project with the attribute system) up to the end-user in their
>configuration. While Peter may feel that sort piped to head may be
>available on all the reasonable UNIX systems, his merge driver would
>not work on other platforms. There already is a similar reliance of
>monoculture by a project shipping Makefile et al, which is an
>interesting parallel.
This is actually a further good reason for doing it this way: it means that more genal drivers can be written using files in the repo, depending on what the baseline of the project is.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.