Re: Proposal: server-advertised config options

From: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Date: Sep 7, 2020, 18:49 UTC
Message-ID: <C5HD1Z4AEVWJ.2QPVVNIQGBAM7@homura>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD1wS9GDhek0Rbo=E+csf_u32D+22EsLom=AFu5D1pAYYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon Sep 7, 2020 at 2:49 PM EDT, Christian Couder wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> > Upon cloning, each recommended config option would be displayed to the
> > user, and they would be prompted ([Y/n]) to agree to set that value in
> > the config file for that repository.
>
> Maybe the default should be "N" instead of "Y" for more security. Also
> when not using a terminal, it should do nothing by default too.

Ack, ack.

Show 7 quoted lines

> > Additionally, there would be a config option which white-lists a
> > list of config options which are automatically agreed to without
> > prompting,
>
> This might be dangerous if this option can also be proposed by the
> server, as it could first propose a big list of white listed options
> to the client.

Aye, I think we'd prevent the server from advertising that option period, as a hard-coded restriction.

> My opinion is that you might not want to start working on all the
> above at once. It might be better to start small and safe while
> leaving the door open to further improvements.

While this work could easily be (and ought to be) broken up into small commits which introduce it one piece at a time, I'm not sure that any subset of the pieces is *shippable*. Do you have a suggestion for how it could be broken up into small, shippable pieces?