Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2011, #02; Mon, 5)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 6, 2011, 18:47 UTC
Message-ID: <20111206184726.GA9492@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vhb1dh7ki.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 10:35:25AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> > Also, let's drop the top git_getpass bits from the topic for now (they
> > will not be part of my rebase). They are a separate topic that can go on
> > top, but I think there was some question from Erik of whether we should
> > simply roll our own getpass().
> 
> Sounds sensible.
> 
> I suspect that there may be a codepath where we could ask both username
> and password; instead of making two consecutive calls to getpass() or
> git_prompt(), the series may want to give a higher level abstraction, so
> that GUI can show a dialog with two input fields (single-line input and
> password input) and interact only once with the user. Such an input widget
> could _show_ the username, and optionally even let it edited (there may be
> ramifications depending on how the codepath uses the username), while
> asking for the corresponding password.

Yes, I've considered that, too. But I think the idea of a combined username/password is part of the credential code, and the right call chain is something like:

  credential_fill
    -> call helpers with "get"; return if it works
    -> credential_getpass
       -> call helpers with "ask" for combined GUI prompt
       -> otherwise, use git_prompt
          -> git_prompt("username")
          -> git_prompt("password")

So the "switch getpass to a generic prompt" idea is separate from providing that higher-level abstraction.

Show 10 quoted lines

> >> * jk/maint-1.6.2-upload-archive (2011-11-21) 1 commit
> >>  - archive: don't let remote clients get unreachable commits
> >>  (this branch is used by jk/maint-upload-archive.)
> [...]
> I was planning to first have the really tight version graduate to 'master'
> and ship it in 1.7.9, while possibly merging that to 1.7.8.X series. If we
> hear complaints from real users in the meantime before or after such
> releases, we could apply loosening patch on top of these topics and call
> them "regression fix", but I have been assuming that nobody would have
> been using this backdoor for anything that really matters.

OK. I'll hold back on the loosening then.

-Peff