Re: [PATCH] git_connect: allow passing arguments to ssh in GIT_SSH_ARGS
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Nov 8, 2014, 11:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20141108110958.GB20750@peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20141108104439.GA89717@melamine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 11:44:39AM +0100, Thomas Quinot wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> It may be impractical to install a wrapper script for ssh > when additional parameters need to be passed. Provide an > alternative way of specifying these by means of the GIT_SSH_ARGS > environment variable. Arguments are whitespace delimited following > usual shell conventions; embedded whitespace can be enclosed > in quotes, or escaped with a backslash.
This has bugged me before, too. Almost every sub-program invoked by git is done so using a shell, so you can put in arbitrary arguments or even snippets of shell code. But not GIT_SSH.
I think the original reason was to match other programs with similar variables. At this point, we can't just change it on a whim; the quoting requirements are different and it would break people's setups. So your approach of adding a new variable is good (the other option is figuring out a long-term transition plan).
However, I'm not sure adding a separate variable for options is the best we can do. Besides being a bit clunky, it has two big shortcomings:
1. It's not consistent with other git variables that use the shell
(e.g., GIT_PAGER). 2. It's not as flexible as a shell; you can't specify "$HOME/bin/ssh"
or other even more esoteric things, like dynamically tweaking
the options based on the environment.What do you think of adding an alternate variable that is not ssh _arguments_, but rather just a full shell command for running ssh? I'm not sure what it could be called (GIT_SSH_SH is probably too confusing).
Show 5 quoted lines
> I hope I won't stray too far away from established procedures > with my first contribution to git. This patch adds support > for a GIT_SSH_ARGS environment variable, providing a way > of specifying ssh arguments without having to create a > wrapper script.
The formatting and whatnot of your submission looks fine to me. The patch itself looks reasonable, though I didn't look too closely after making my comments above. :)
-Peff