Re: [PATCH 0/11] allow overriding remote.*.url

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jun 26, 2024, 20:40 UTC
Message-ID: <20240626204001.GC441931@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BEaFUH2QaAW+9B904cCN_h8oyxTaSDMkK=v_yZua=A1kA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:44:03AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> I only managed to find a few typos in commit messages, but I looked
> through patches 1-8 pretty closely.  I only skimmed 9 & 10 -- I don't
> really have an opinion on the remote helpers.  I agree that the issue
> you bring up in the patches makes sense to discuss, and the route you
> picked looks reasonable to me, but I don't feel motivated to try to
> use or understand the remote helpers enough to form an opinion.
> However, I'm a fan of the cleanup in patch 11 that your changes in 9 &
> 10 enabled, so if everyone's as ambivalent as me (and 15 years of
> things being broken suggests everyone is likely to be as ambivalent as
> me) then I'd say just go with your changes in 9 & 10 and call it a
> day.

Thanks for taking a look. I do think patches 9 and 10 are the most controversial in their goals. But for the reasons given there, I don't think anybody will care about the direction much either way. And certainly they are not making anything _worse_, since the thing they disallow is already broken. They are merely shutting off the option of "fixing" it to match the original intent.

So I stand by the direction I took in the patches, but I wanted to point out that if anybody wants to be extra careful, those are the ones to look at.

-Peff