From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Grimm Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Allow update hooks to update refs on their own. Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:33:12 -0800 Message-ID: <21AA9521-0FED-471F-AFBC-B5CEF4B4A5E9@midwinter.com> References: <7vr6i8sfsa.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071202212224.GA22117@midwinter.com> <20071203040108.GS14735@spearce.org> <20071204015108.GV14735@spearce.org> <20071204022020.GA14735@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 04 03:33:48 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IzNbS-0006nY-Dc for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:33:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751245AbXLDCdO (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:33:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751076AbXLDCdO (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:33:14 -0500 Received: from tater.midwinter.com ([216.32.86.90]:41307 "HELO midwinter.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750740AbXLDCdN (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 21:33:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 24409 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2007 02:33:13 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=200606; d=midwinter.com; b=XGNDxKhcdiB9HS2g6C6PAF0L3R39ImelHkouWoaCz2vmqsZuRuseoutCR3QJDCZy ; Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Dec 2007 02:33:13 -0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > I am somewhat wary of using environment variables in that context, > since > the variables could leak to subprocesses, or (even worse), they > could be > set inadvertently by the user or other scripts. Agreed on the inadvertent setting, but isn't leaking to subprocesses the whole point of the exercise here? -Steve