Re: The enduring popularity of git-credential-store

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Nov 17, 2022, 18:51 UTC
Message-ID: <Y3aCx1SYq6jrYfuO@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <AS2PR03MB98158D49DC655F6DC6D10ECDC0069@AS2PR03MB9815.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 09:17:53AM -0800, Matthew John Cheetham wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > In the ideal world, we'd ship an encrypted store that people could use,
> > but then we have to deal with export regulations and sanctions and
> > nobody wants to do that.  We'd also have to deal with multiple
> > cryptographic libraries for portability and license reasons and nobody
> > wants to do that, either.
> 
> One option rather than shipping (or including in contrib/) any of these
> credential helpers, could we not reference several other popular helpers
> in the docs, and let users make their own choice (but at least some are
> then possibly more discoverable)?

I don't have any problem with documenting the options better. The main reason we have store/cache at all, even though they kind of suck, was to act as least-common-denominators and pave the way for people making better helpers. That happened, but nobody ever went back to adjust the docs.

I do think having the docs say "you should go use X" means that X will have an advantage over other projects which may compete with it. So I think we need to be careful to be inclusive of what we'll mention, and to word it so that we're not endorsing any one project.

-Peff