threads / discuss / 34456

maintainer question: config http.<url>.* patch administrivia

Subject: maintainer question: config http.<url>.* patch administrivia

## tl;dr

3 messages between Jul 17, 2013 and Jul 17, 2013.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Kyle J. McKay· Jul 17, 2013, 15:02 UTC · lore

I have pondered these items:

On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:48, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Perhaps we should fix it as a preparatory patch (1/2) before the
> main "feature addition" patch.

On Jul 12, 2013, at 11:52, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Subject: [PATCH] http.c: fix parsing of  
> http.sslCertPasswordProtected variable

On Jul 14, 2013, at 21:02, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Assuming that Aaron and Peff's enhancement will not be a backward
> incompatible update, my preference is to take the posted matching
> semantics as-is (you may have some other changes that does not
> change the "strictly textual match" semantics).

And in response I have previously sent out a combined v5 patch that has:

0001: your preparatory http.sslCertPasswordProtected patch 0002: logically related GIT_SSL_CERT_PASSWORD_PROTECTED patch 0003: textual matching http.<url>.* patch 0004: url normalization matching http.<url>.* 0005: test for url normalization function

However, upon further consideration (I noticed that the preparatory patch and v4 of the textual matching patch made their way into pu), perhaps it would be more convenient for you if I re-released the following patch series:

[PATCH v5]: config: support http.<url>.* settings - (1) textual matching

* contains 0001 the same preparatory http.sslCertPasswordProtected
* contains 0002 the same v5 textual matching http.<url>.* patch

[PATCH v2]: config: support http.<url>.* settings - (2) url normalization

* contains 0001 url normalization matching with feedback updates
* contains 0002 url normalization test

[PATCH v1]: config: support http.<url>.* settings - (3) any user matching

* contains 0001 a new patch that extends (2) to include any user  
matching

And drop the GIT_SSL_CERT_PASSWORD_PROTECTED patch as while it's logically related to the http.sslCertPasswordProtected patch it's not logistically related since independent areas of the file are touched and it could be successfully applied before or after the other patches. It can go together with any forthcoming enable-only fix for GIT_SSL_CERT_PASSWORD_PROTECTED and other such environment variables or just be dropped entirely.

I do not, however, wish to create any additional maintainer work, so wanted to check with you before sending out any of the reissues.

Junio C Hamano· Jul 17, 2013, 17:35 UTC · re: Kyle J. McKay · lore

Re: maintainer question: config http.<url>.* patch administrivia

"Kyle J. McKay" <mackyle@gmail.com> writes:

> However, upon further consideration (I noticed that the preparatory
> patch and v4 of the textual matching patch made their way into pu),

Do not read too much into being in 'pu'. They are there primarily so that I won't forget what is in-flight and can be replaced or dropped.

> perhaps it would be more convenient for you if I re-released the
> following patch series:

Sorry, but I do not understand. What do you mean by having these three patch series? Are they "There are three possibilities, pick one and discard the other two"? If so, then as the maintainer, I personally would not care ;-), as they would be commented upon, and I won't pick any of them up until there is one list favorite.

If "These build on top of each other in this order", then it is easier for me to manage if they were in a single series.

If f1ff763a (http.c: fix parsing of http.sslCertPasswordProtected variable, 2013-07-12) is already solid and need no further tweaking, it would be wise not to include the patch in any of your reroll in any case. Instead, just build your series on top of that commit, and make it clear that the series is meant to apply on top of that commit in the cover letter [0/n] of the series, or after "---" line of the first patch [1/n] in the series.

As to allowing GIT_SSL_CERT_PASSWORD_PROTECTED=no, I agree that it does not belong to the http.*.<var> configuration series, so making it an independent patch, perhaps on top of f1ff763a, would make sense. If the other patches have any textual dependency, you can make it [1/n] of your series and we can treat it just like f1ff763a, that is, make sure it is solid regardless of the rest of the series, and make it advance before the remainder of the series, so that we can still replace http.*.<var> implementation on top of these two freely.

Show 31 quoted lines

>
> [PATCH v5]: config: support http.<url>.* settings - (1) textual matching
>
> * contains 0001 the same preparatory http.sslCertPasswordProtected
> * contains 0002 the same v5 textual matching http.<url>.* patch
>
>
> [PATCH v2]: config: support http.<url>.* settings - (2) url
> normalization
>
> * contains 0001 url normalization matching with feedback updates
> * contains 0002 url normalization test
>
>
> [PATCH v1]: config: support http.<url>.* settings - (3) any user
> matching
>
> * contains 0001 a new patch that extends (2) to include any user
> matching
>
>
> And drop the GIT_SSL_CERT_PASSWORD_PROTECTED patch as while it's
> logically related to the http.sslCertPasswordProtected patch it's not
> logistically related since independent areas of the file are touched
> and it could be successfully applied before or after the other
> patches.  It can go together with any forthcoming enable-only fix for
> GIT_SSL_CERT_PASSWORD_PROTECTED and other such environment variables
> or just be dropped entirely.
>
> I do not, however, wish to create any additional maintainer work, so
> wanted to check with you before sending out any of the reissues.

Kyle J. McKay· Jul 17, 2013, 18:15 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: maintainer question: config http.<url>.* patch administrivia

On Jul 17, 2013, at 10:35, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> "Kyle J. McKay" <mackyle@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> perhaps it would be more convenient for you if I re-released the
>> following patch series:
>
> If "These build on top of each other in this order", then it is
> easier for me to manage if they were in a single series.

Yup. They build on one another so each requires the previous. Will keep them in a single series.

Show 7 quoted lines

> If f1ff763a (http.c: fix parsing of http.sslCertPasswordProtected
> variable, 2013-07-12) is already solid and need no further tweaking,
> it would be wise not to include the patch in any of your reroll in
> any case.  Instead, just build your series on top of that commit,
> and make it clear that the series is meant to apply on top of that
> commit in the cover letter [0/n] of the series, or after "---" line
> of the first patch [1/n] in the series.

Got it.  Will do.  f1ff763a looks solid to me:

Reviewed-by: Kyle J. McKay <mackyle@gmail.com>

And earlier:

On Jul 12, 2013, at 12:05, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] http.c: fix parsing of  
> http.sslCertPasswordProtected variable
>
> this change looks good.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>

so I will drop it from any future series and just refer to it in the cover letter as you suggest.

> As to allowing GIT_SSL_CERT_PASSWORD_PROTECTED=no, I agree that it
> does not belong to the http.*.<var> configuration series

Agreed.  Will not include it in any future http.*.<var> series.

Show 6 quoted lines

> If the other patches have any textual dependency, you can
> make it [1/n] of your series and we can treat it just like f1ff763a,
> that is, make sure it is solid regardless of the rest of the series,
> and make it advance before the remainder of the series, so that we
> can still replace http.*.<var> implementation on top of these two
> freely.

Got it.  Will do that and keep it in a single series.

Thanks for the direction,

Kyle