From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Geolocation support Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:57:11 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87mwrncfkh.fsf@ethzero.com> <7vhahtfuzm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <87h9uwvtm2.fsf@ethzero.com> <87d25ekg65.fsf@ethzero.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Antoine Pelisse , Ramkumar Ramachandra , git To: Alessandro Di Marco X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 12 21:57:20 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YM0p4-0007ly-Ii for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:57:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751798AbbBLU5O (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:57:14 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:53992 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751701AbbBLU5N (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:57:13 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE15437BFE; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:57:12 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=8S5R+UYtpykztaRpZ6Xwon8xSeU=; b=qjKDOb gpNyitOWdJ8cfsg+EFGCwTElMRy/+voFgzZmjJrIwOe/p89/fKN7pAC2gAWja9Ly h/7jS/SbZKD1jVxMdUiOdQLmyhGOTvMR/Qpv4X3kuJG6ebkQsbbsOXqdrltWidOH u4X232uMfJKtU6e5pFD9EV7JcmF2UZ/nMDYCM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=DjuWF6U9mH9VdhGXACdm08oOSIy2qVuS JBs17svob6OtSGxiPW6Lp8AsyP5dWMoYCd6uNgLA3K0ahkQJprQZL1fnjL7GUoat FvXHZIRpWJ4KwE8b+pfwfge1fpGaLGybsMVEWy4Aslbhb7y5SRfqVj9IJDfC+UKq 0mQdIeDqelY= Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44EC37BFD; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:57:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4926E37BFC; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:57:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87d25ekg65.fsf@ethzero.com> (Alessandro Di Marco's message of "Thu, 12 Feb 2015 21:50:42 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B7896A30-B2F9-11E4-AD4D-A4119F42C9D4-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Alessandro Di Marco writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> More importantly, adding non-essential stuff left and right will force >> third party Git reimplementations to pay attention to them and also >> will leave room for them to make mistakes when deciding what to >> propagate, what to drop and what to update when rewriting commits via >> rebase, cherry-pick, etc. > > ??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity > > Do you realize that every git I tried so far has happily accepted any > crufts I sent to it via git push? And that they stored that crufts and > then returned it on cloning? :-| Yes, they will all copy the original commits byte-for-byte. Otherwise they are broken. But that is not the paragraph you quoted and responded is about. What *should* happen, either in the original repository or the other repository you pushed these commits into, when you _rewrite_ such a commit? Should all the cruft headers be carried over to the rewritten commit? Should all of them be dropped? Should some be kept but some be dropped? Should some be kept under one condition but not others? How are you making sure that all Git reimplementations do the same thing to the random cruft headers?