Re: [PATCH 8/8] http: prompt for credentials on failed POST

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 27, 2012, 23:29 UTC
Message-ID: <7voblvq5gw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120827214930.GA18287@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

>> A silly question.  Does the initial GET request when we push look
>> any different from the initial GET request when we fetch?  Can we
>> make them look different in an updated client, so that the server
>> side can say "this GET is about pushing into us, and we require
>> authentication"?
>
> Yes, they are already different. A fetch asks for
> ...
> But doing it this way has been advertised in our manpage for so long, I
> assume some people are using it. And given that it used to work for
> older clients (prior to v1.7.8), and that the person who upgraded their
> client is not always in charge of telling the person running the server
> to fix their server, I think it's worth un-breaking it.

Oh, I wasn't saying the fix is unnecessary. I was trying to see if there is something people who _care_ about wasted effort on the client side can do to fix their configuration properly (otherwise while we are patching the client, make sure we give them a way).

Show 5 quoted lines

> But that would still suffer from (1) and (2) above, so I don't see it as
> a real advantage. You _could_ fix both cases by buffering the input data
> and restarting the request. I just didn't think it was worth doing,
> since they are unlikely configurations and the code complexity is much
> higher.

OK.