From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (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 F2082ED8 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:32:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710887541; cv=none; b=jofjPhhudwZRzx2uubcEvpz1Uo1eSSZ8hqJnGbBNpaJ47xMEv1+Q4qZO3fZ8iZ3Cio7vKOEquYdxjnXeWOSNSVIJzwxrjogFXVjJ+EvJAxpGNt+swtQsqNADIwFB+17B1QDteTNnxpQDDLhIwc3W2D0hvitnEOKXOGQp3A9Lhns= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710887541; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LplD5pS8KxsO9mEob/AggPU/kmHKZ7NUZswEwu012LQ=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=MHGpfVDu6LR9ZN6hGGzm+CtAkbb0DaYklMJCd8Nbpwe4BBPBYo4sbTE8EuZvTOdL0cbSY1BKxrzHIJ3L1YgfqlCZaFYNmD2rtWJLitgtavmpI3+3avMElFor8H877WLlW+phPufxSyX7dUnyc/9fnyalCo89wtkq2EvriLIzc0o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (cpebc4dfb928313-cmbc4dfb928310.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.251.108] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 42JMVrgZ3094110 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:31:54 GMT Reply-To: From: To: "'Dirk Gouders'" Cc: "'Junio C Hamano'" , "'Eric Sunshine'" , "'Ignacio Encinas'" , , "'Jeff King'" , "'Taylor Blau'" References: <20240309181828.45496-1-ignacio@iencinas.com> <20240319183722.211300-1-ignacio@iencinas.com> <02d601da7a49$3bbf1230$b33d3690$@nexbridge.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/2] Add hostname condition to includeIf Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:31:47 -0400 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <02d701da7a4d$3e60e960$bb22bc20$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Content-Language: en-ca Thread-Index: AQGtFbHTdn1kVN5iPDvVZmFFSAj7tAJ4RnKbAdcT/EoCkKsPPAKng2iXARNvOzABvkAqwLE3pHfQ On Tuesday, March 19, 2024 6:27 PM, Dirk Gouders wrote: > writes: > >> On Tuesday, March 19, 2024 5:37 PM, Dirk Gouders wrote: >>>Junio C Hamano writes: >>> >>>> Eric Sunshine writes: >>>> >>>>> Peff felt that adding `git config --show-hostname-for-includes` was >>>>> probably overkill, but I'd argue that it is necessary to enable >>>>> users to deterministically figure out the value to use in their >>>>> configuration rather than having to grope around in the dark via >>>>> guesswork and trial-and-error to figure out exactly what works. >>>>> >>>>> And the option name doesn't necessarily have to be so verbose; a >>>>> shorter name, such as `git config --show-hostname` may be good enough. >>>>> Implementing this option would also obviate the need to implement >>>>> `test-tool xgethostname` (though, I agree with Junio that >>>>> `test-tool gethostname` would have been a better, less >>>>> implementation-revealing name). >>>> >>>> Yeah, I like that show-hostname thing (which I do not know if "config" >>>> is a good home for, though). >>> >>>A thought when I was reading this: wouldn't it be enough to document >>>that >> `uname -n` can be used to get the hostname that should >>>be used? >>> >>>As far as I know this should be POSIX-compliant and uses gethostname(2). >> >> As previously pointed out, uname -n and gethostname(2) are not equivalent. >> uname -n does not (depending on implementation) go to DNS while >> gethostname(2) goes to DNS first (although apparently glibc may not). >> This is particularly important in a multi-home situation where more >> than one IP adapter has a different IP address on the same host, and >> where DNS does not consider the different addresses to be equivalent >> (which otherwise could cause problems for reverse lookups). > >Thanks for the explanation, I did not notice this has already been discussed. > >Interestingly, I strace(1)'ed uname -n here on Linux and noticed it uses >uname(2) (what else?) and not gethostname(2), so it seems I was completely >wrong. > >Sorry for disturbing the discussion. No worries. I only know this point because I was rather deeply in a related code base back in 1994. I did not know that glibc varied from an old UNIX (I think that's where the code was from) code base prior to this thread. Learning is good and never a problem. Regards, Randall