Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] submodule: pass on http.extraheader config settings
- From
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
- Date
- Apr 28, 2016, 19:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAGZ79kYoRP=rkfaL+rLapmvouUdPxXGBr-KWOLhL94bYB1B2-w@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqwpnh4joq.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes: > >> It's definitely sufficient, it's just annoying if a user shows up every >> week and says "I want X.Y", and then somebody else shows up a week later >> and says "I want X.Z". >> >> Are we serving any purpose in vetting each one (and if so, what)? > > Personally I do not think we would need to filter _anything_ if we > can tell that the user directly said > > git -c var1=val1 -c var2=val2 $cmd ... > > and "git $cmd" ended up needing to spawn another "git" subcommand, > possibly in some other repository (i.e. "$cmd" in this case is > likely to be "submodule", but in principle it does not have to be). > If the user somehow gives variables like core.worktree that are > inappropriate to be applied across repositories, that's user's > problem, i.e. "don't do it then if it hurts".
So when going with that philosophy, the user might be missing switches like
-c-for-this-repo-only core.worktree=... -c submodule.worktree=align-relative-to-parent
i.e. when shifting the responsibility to the user, we need to have switches to pass options to the repository or a subset of submodules?
Show 10 quoted lines
> > If we are doing any filtering, however, it is always hard, if not > impossible, to take away what we originally granted, even by > mistake, for any reason, even for correctness or for security, in a > later release. > > We probably could sidestep it by introducing an end-user > configurable "whitelist" somewhere. > >