Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] agent: advertise OS name via agent capability

>
> Usman Akinyemi <usmanakinyemi202@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > As some issues that can happen with a Git client can be operating system
> > specific, it can be useful for a server to know which OS a client is
> > using. In the same way it can be useful for a client to know which OS
> > a server is using.
> >
> > Our current agent capability is in the form of "package/version" (e.g.,
> > "git/1.8.3.1"). Let's extend it to include the operating system name (os)
> > i.e in the form "package/version os" (e.g., "git/1.8.3.1 Linux").
> >
> > Including OS details in the agent capability simplifies implementation,
> > maintains backward compatibility, avoids introducing a new capability,
> > encourages adoption across Git-compatible software, and enhances
> > debugging by providing complete environment information without affecting
> > functionality.
>
> I obviously agree with the benefits enumerated in the above
> paragraph.  The simpler, the better.
>
> I however wonder ...
>
> > Add the `transfer.advertiseOSInfo` config option to address privacy
> > concerns. It defaults to `true` and can be changed to `false`.
>
> ... if this configuration knob is at the right granularity.
>
> For privacy concious folks, I would imagine that the distinction
> between "git/1.8.3.1" vs "git/2.48.1" would be something they do not
> want to reveal equally as, if not more than, which Operating System
> they are on.  Such a privacy concious user may already be using
> GIT_USER_AGENT environment variable to squelch it already, anyway.
>
> If we were to give them an improvement in the area for privacy
> features, I would think it would be to add a configuration variable
> to turn the agent off, instead of having to leave GIT_USER_AGENT
> environment variable set in the environment of their processes.
>
> On the other hand, for the rest of us who think "git/1.8.3.1 Linux"
> is not too much of a secret, we do not need a knob to configure it
> between "git/1.8.3.1" and "git/1.8.3.1 Linux".
>
> So, while I view some parts of the series would have been a good
> exercise to use various features (like config subsystem) from our
> API, I prefer if we kept the end-user interface not overly
> customizable (iow, without a config-knob, we do not need to add a
> code to inspect the new configuration variable).

>
> After all, GIT_USER_AGENT let's you hide not just the OS part but
> any other things from the user-agent string already.
>
> I notice that unlike user_agent() vs user_agent_sanitized(), you
> only have a single function for os_info(), which I think is a good
> design.  But if we were to go that route, shouldn't we call the
> function os_info(), not os_info_sanitized()?  The idea behind a
> single function is that you cannot obtain unsanitized version of
> os_info() out of the system at all, so what _sanitized() returns
> would be what os_info() without _sanitized suffix would return to
> the caller anyway.
>
> Thanks.