From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) (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 909ED16FF48 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719872745; cv=none; b=DlBcU+5DqJIMZjnKD1MWwHB4/9Bv/oFLwpL4WIVRtGjY04PF4e4lW5b88i7kcgs5dcT+g4KRLg2FDvrrttFai/pEb9Lmj+fX+7WhhptYdgAlBkygEpvqEk2Db7iSVHdmCfDBIZUa+ieI3sQzz+t9f+0gX8HwO86fdllsEFJ4xVc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719872745; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TDyiJlFdVz4PienHYUmG2AKwINdUZpS9CiZQH91MLvw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=o9wBcV6dQkAVlVrfzvL5AN27Z8NVrONtUWgAk0jkcQLqt+z4h6j+caAK0LzHHzNsRji2qau1YbAxhbSEjP47x+vJtY2dol/cGPHhCVImBO7YB2VAaDtxqIT+R1L/JNERpGruEKocje3oAvBncdnTYAJJLEs6eVmfP6+kC0qNQ8Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=104.130.231.41 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Received: (qmail 29701 invoked by uid 109); 1 Jul 2024 22:25:43 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 22:25:43 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 18207 invoked by uid 111); 1 Jul 2024 22:25:40 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 18:25:40 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 18:25:41 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Eric Wong , Johannes Schindelin , phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk, Florian Schmaus , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] setup: support GIT_IGNORE_INSECURE_OWNER environment variable Message-ID: <20240701222541.GC20683@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20240626123358.420292-1-flo@geekplace.eu> <20240626123358.420292-2-flo@geekplace.eu> <9e5b0cc6-e28c-4c51-ab48-663c61c00ee3@gmail.com> <72e42e9f-5b85-4863-8506-c99d658d7596@gmail.com> <20240701181916.GD3199@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: [+cc Eric for some possible public-inbox wisdom] On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 01:40:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > There's some more discussion from a similar case that came up a month > > ago: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240529102307.GF1098944@coredump.intra.peff.net/ > > Thanks. I wonder if there is a way to add this kind of pieces of > information to old commits and discussion threads around it after > the fact, and if it helps us (like Dscho who wondered why we decided > if it is a good idea, and more importantly if we still think it is a > good idea and why). > > ... and then goes back to see the original discussion thread, > with the "bright idea" that I could just follow up on 14-year > old discussion thread. Only to find that despite what Dscho > said, the commit message does say why it is desirable ("to > imitate remote transport well") already. > > So, I guess we do not really need to do such a post-annotation in > this particular case, but I think after seeing somebody posting a > message like the one I am responding to and finding it helpful, it > would be helpful if somebody can post a message pointing at it as a > response to the old thread that wants a post-annotation. Usually I find myself digging backwards in history, following links to old threads. But I guess what you are asking is how would somebody looking at old thread XYZ know that it was mentioned much later. And I think the solution is for the new thread to just link to the old one by message-id (i.e., the usual lore links). And then searching for that message-id in the archive could turn up the later threads. I don't know how well public-inbox handles that in practice, though: 1. Do things that look like message-ids get searched for in message bodies? I'd think so if you don't explicitly say "this is a message id". 2. It's really a multi-element search. If I have a thread with 10 messages, I'd really like to know of more recent threads that linked back to _any_ message in the thread. You'd probably have to feed them all manually. But in theory indexing could generate some kind of bidirectional "related" link. I don't often do this with message-ids, but I frequently do find other references by doing a full-text search for commit hashes, or phrases from commit subjects. I usually do so with my local notmuch archive, rather than using public-inbox, but I think you should be able to do phrase searches there, too. -Peff