Re: [PATCH] http: http.emptyauth should allow empty (not just NULL) usernames

>> > > 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.