From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 22:04:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] imap-send: correctly report "host" when using "tunnel"
Message-ID: <230207.86357h2kmh.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8rh9yxot.fsf@gitster.g>


On Tue, Feb 07 2023, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I think you might be right that people might rely on this after having
>> discovered this undocumented interaction by accident.
>>
>> But I also think that the lack of questions about how to get imap-send's
>> tunnel mode to work with auth helpers (at least I couldn't find any
>> on-list), which is what you'd run into if you went by the documentation
>> & were trying to get htat ot work, is a pretty good sign that this may
>> be either entirely unused by anyone, or at best very obscure.
>
> I actually think the misconfiguration (from documentation's point of
> view) Peff is taking advantage of is a behaviour you would naturally
> expect, if you do not read the documentation but are merely aware of
> the presence of .host and .tunnel and guess what these do.  And
> those who felt it was a natural design would probably not have asked
> any question about it.  Documenting the current behaviour better
> would not hurt.  Updating the behaviour and documenting the new
> behaviour would not help anybody.

Sure, we don't have to belabor the point. It's moot for a re-roll of
this topic in any case (I won't be changing this behavior).

But do I take it from the non-reply to what came afterwards that you're
not interested in a (not a part of this topic) proposal for us to say
"if you want that, arrange for ssh to do it for you", which would allow
for finally dropping libssl as a non-trivial direct dependency? Or just
that you didn't get to considering that?