Re: [PATCH] shell: Rewrite documentation and improve error message
- From
Greg Brockman <gdb@mit.edu>
- Date
- Aug 22, 2010, 06:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTi=u7VUhz4VrU2hdd3SXK7rMvMrijL-X9qXCG1vs@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1282333452-25278-1-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com>
Warning: the following email contains lots of nitpicks. Proceed at your own risk.
Show 6 quoted lines
> +A login shell for SSH accounts to provide restricted Git access. When > +'-c' is given, the program executes <command> non-interactively; > +<command> can be one of 'git receive-pack', 'git upload-pack', 'git > +upload-archive', 'cvs server', or a command in COMMAND_DIR. The shell > +is started in interactive mode when no arguments are given; in this > +case, COMMAND_DIR must exist, and any of the executables in them can
s/in them/in it/
> +COMMAND_DIR is the path 'git-shell-commands' in the user's home > +directory. The user must have read and execute permissions to the
- Maybe instead 'COMMAND_DIR is the path "$HOME/git-shell-commands"'?
> +directory for it to be useful.
- I would be more specific here, and instead change this insertion to something like: "directory in order to execute commands in it." - What about adding something like 'Commands in COMMAND_DIR are run with a cwd of $HOME' - Perhaps note that if a COMMAND_DIR program is invoked, 'argument' is parsed as a command-line?
Show 15 quoted lines
>
> Author
> ------
> diff --git a/shell.c b/shell.c
> index ffed615..3fb804e 100644
> --- a/shell.c
> +++ b/shell.c
> @@ -152,8 +152,11 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> } else if (argc == 1) {
> /* Allow the user to run an interactive shell */
> cd_to_homedir();
> - if (access(COMMAND_DIR, R_OK | X_OK) == -1)
> - die("Sorry, the interactive git-shell is not enabled");
> + if (access(COMMAND_DIR, R_OK | X_OK) == -1) {
> + die("Inteactive git shell is not enabled.\n"s/Inteactive/Interactive/
> + "hint: " COMMAND_DIR " should exist "
I would recommend displaying ~/$COMMAND_DIR instead, or $HOME/COMMAND_DIR. The latter could be considered an information leak though.
> + "and have read and execute access.");
Sounds fine to me otherwise. Thanks for starting on this.