From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: git version statistics Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:32:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20120602163248.GD15017@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120531114801.GA21367@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120531120018.GA24986@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v396g6t53.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120601090337.GC32340@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vzk8n3x5e.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 02 18:33:34 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 1SarGe-0005LR-2i for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:33:32 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759419Ab2FBQcv (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:32:51 -0400 Received: from 99-108-225-23.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.225.23]:41149 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758345Ab2FBQcu (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 12:32:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 13966 invoked by uid 107); 2 Jun 2012 16:32:52 -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; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:32:52 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 02 Jun 2012 12:32:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vzk8n3x5e.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 07:49:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > My initial reaction to the patch was a bit of trouble with the word > "agent", as we do not call Git acting on behalf of the end user "an > agent" in general. Yeah, I don't especially like the term "agent". I had initially called it "version", but rejected that for two reasons: 1. It is not just a version, but also telling what software is in use (so I would expect git to write git/v1.7.10, and other implementations to write write dulwich/1.2.3 or whatever). 2. I didn't want it to be confused as a protocol version. But maybe those are non-issues. It should be fairly obvious what it is when you see even one example of the value. > > Some traditional security advice I have heard is that servers should not > > advertise their versions, as it makes it more obvious what holes they > > have. Personally, I find that argument to be mostly security through > > obscurity. > > I do, too, but shipping with a configuration knob to optionally turn > it off would be sufficient. I think the most sensible thing is to just add a Makefile variable that defaults to $(GIT_VERSION), and let people override it if they want privacy. The http user-agent variable actually respects an environment variable, but I don't see much point in going that far. I'll cook up a new version of the patch. -Peff