RE: [PATCH] http: http.emptyauth should allow empty (not just NULL) usernames
Show 22 quoted lines
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff King [mailto:peff@peff.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 5:59 PM
> To: David Turner
> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org; sandals@crustytoothpaste.net
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] http: http.emptyauth should allow empty (not just
> NULL) usernames
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 09:54:19PM +0000, David Turner wrote:
>
> > > I dunno. The code path you are changing _only_ affects anything if
> > > the http.emptyauth config is set. But I guess I just don't
> > > understand why you would say "http://@gitserver" in the first place.
> Is that a common thing?
> >
> > I have no idea if it is common. I know that we do it.
>
> I guess my question is: _why_ do you do it? Or more specifically, does
> http://gitserver.example.com" with http.emptyauth not work, and why?
>
> From your response, I _think_ the answer is "no, it doesn't, and I have no
> clue why".
That was true historically.
I just tried our old version of git 2.8 (that is, before this patch, and before the libcurl upgrade), and http://gitserver.example.com *does* seem to work with http.emptyauth (and does not work without). However, http://@gitserver.example.com does *not* work with http.emptyauth, and *does* work without.
After the libcurl upgrade, but before this patch, http://@gitserver.example.com does *not* work with http.emptyauth, while http://gitserver.example.com does.
And finally, after the upgrade and with this patch, both urls work.
> So I dunno. It is annoying not to know what is actually going on, but I'm
> OK with it if we don't think there's a high chance of regressing any other
> workflows (which I guess not, because http.emptyauth seems to be a
> Kerberos-specific hack in the first place).
Yes, I think this is all Kerberos-only.