From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:45:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] push: deny policy to prevent pushes to unwanted remotes.
Message-ID: <827DA549-F046-4B52-90C2-ADB5BC72C16F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpqfus7jc59.fsf@anie.imag.fr>


> On 21 Jun 2016, at 08:20, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
> 
> Antoine Queru <antoine.queru@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
> 
>> However, in the last version, if we want to deny an website,
>> including all schemes, we can blacklist the url without the
>> scheme. For example, "pushBlacklist = github.com". By doing so, this
>> remote is not an url anymore, and it can't be differenced with a local
>> relative path. It's a problem because these two have a different
>> treatement. The choice we made to solve this is to force the user to
>> put the scheme "file://" before any local relative path. What do you
>> think ?
> 
> file:// URL can not be relative (well, you can invent a syntax where
> they are, but that would be weird).
> 
> I think you can just forbid relative path in whitelist/blacklist, hence
> consider that anything that is neither a full URL nor an absolute path
> is a protocol-less URL:
> 
> * http://github.com = github.com with HTTP protocol
> 
> * github.com = github.com with any protocol
> 
> * /path/to/file or file:///path/to/file = local path

I agree. Ignoring relative paths (and mentioning that in the docs)
sounds reasonable to me. I don't think that would be a limitation as
I can't think of a white/blacklist use case for relative URLs.

Thanks,
Lars