From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B064A16132E for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 15:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719847582; cv=none; b=RJTDfwWmqs9nqQDuhnvAX1lmJYiHuQsF/TGXHKqxJ7isvKO17qU90lEPLxp3DxQHaUgg8TODF9XsCH+ESJYahmNjBZHwe4hpeLMlovocKU1UxdQfK2WdQ3iVsfOnFx0GtHTnPjSFvXQPrNMMAGvOxnjEr9eD3MNNOkHa9bwjYHs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719847582; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9A2kpYVsrqOT0THNEKXRrsltQDxRTEpwQdzsSJZbyP8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HDvpFYA0kbXaE5eaEZkvRC8kb7UmzRqmLtXFANt45hEgZMzx8iBKrdx1K2W6eGG9Z0cXS+QuJfGgQ8aDa3AvkNEVuifNydyfkoG8hC3yEy+UIl0CA0/A999FLf+7BQ0rct552dRIJ3LVDCbKmmTt14KA0h6Y2rFWvmOyf5yhNeU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=klAPfGCx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="klAPfGCx" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEF41C705; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 11:26:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=9A2kpYVsrqOT0THNEKXRrsltQDxRTEpwQdzsSJ ZbyP8=; b=klAPfGCxgj8gTFTwDZPH3l8pmLfRDStVL3yNEEkpJLedvZe/mUHzH9 ukLgmC9uz8oM0//9irMW17LbrzDJ6ww1QXKcBCqJ3RVi/wRO6+sy+wuNYWbRw8Y+ Ys639oisUDe1k4s44fSIvWL1eDtfJpEHYQnnBuDM4cJPwGzMlp16o= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DEE1C704; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 11:26:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.219.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 244481C6FB; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 11:26:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] http: allow authenticating proactively In-Reply-To: (brian m. carlson's message of "Sat, 29 Jun 2024 00:23:55 +0000") References: <20240628002742.3421311-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20240628002742.3421311-2-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 08:26:09 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3EF99DB6-37BE-11EF-99ED-C38742FD603B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com "brian m. carlson" writes: > On 2024-06-28 at 22:18:37, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Well, at least I couldn't read the proposed document update and read >> that much out of it, and I suspect there may be other readers who >> will share my confusion. I think the source of the confusion is >> that "don't request" does not automatically imply "allow the helper >> to pick any scheme as it sees fit" if you do not know how helper is >> designed to behave when it is not requested "any scheme". >> >> `basic` - Request Basic authentication from the helper. >> `auto` - Ask the helper to pick an appropriate scheme. >> `none` - Disable proactive authentication. >> >> or something, perhaps? > > That sounds good. I appreciate you providing some language that would > be less confusing to you, because it will probably be less confusing to > others as well. Thanks. Giving a possible alternative, when you are certain you understood what you originally found confusing, is probably one of the things we should add as a tip to ReviewingPatches document (do we have one already--- #leftoverbits ?).