From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: General support for ! in git-config values Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 04:54:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20120202095432.GA19356@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120201184020.GA29374@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v62fq2o03.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vliom13lm.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v7h06109t.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120202023857.GA11745@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= , Git Mailing List To: demerphq X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 02 10:54:48 2012 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 1RstNO-0001Dy-Qs for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:54:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755017Ab2BBJyl (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 04:54:41 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:53224 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754108Ab2BBJyj (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 04:54:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 18856 invoked by uid 107); 2 Feb 2012 10:01:43 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:01:43 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:54:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 10:44:05AM +0100, demerphq wrote: > The general design of git seems to me to be based around providing > building blocks that people can use to build new and interesting tools > on top of, and so it seems counter to that philosophy to reject an > feature based on speculative security issues that really can't be > decided in advance but must instead be decided on a case by case > basis. I can't speak for Junio, but I am certainly not rejecting it. Only saying that it needs to be thought through, and the utility weighed against the costs. So far I haven't seen an actual patch to comment on (or even a proposed syntax beyond starting a string with "!", which I think is a non-starter due to conflicting with existing uses), nor have I seen a concrete use case (you mentioned pulling the name/email from ldap, but you also mentioned that there are lots of other ways of solving that particular problem, so it's not especially compelling). I'd be happy to hear a more concrete proposal. -Peff