From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael J Gruber Subject: Re: [PATCH] http_init: accept separate URL parameter Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:26:55 +0200 Message-ID: <4E9692BF.8040705@drmicha.warpmail.net> References: <4E95FDC8.5030009@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20111012214316.GA4393@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20111012214610.GA4578@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vk4897s4c.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20111012224625.GA11408@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 13 09:27:08 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1REFh3-0004Ur-FC for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:27:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753345Ab1JMH1A (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:27:00 -0400 Received: from out5.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:36059 "EHLO out5.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751564Ab1JMH07 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:26:59 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.43]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F9B222EE; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:26:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=C/k4rTWto6uvIiei43xLCo md6Zc=; b=iqkGSgAcUcFTjz3hzUf6fKLpkNE/TmbidfxYtc1XUWZHkmWb+c/Jl1 N7VGUN6vZ4tKVQnVeBxa92w06rNeBvssOjDIXLR6rdBAxZ3/GF9W4yT3BHY6o3VV Ljgw2T/22G+JnT3iqBINshcKAZeLkivUi3SXmKRYbj6xXMBzcyakk= X-Sasl-enc: U8Xo39pP9qDN7WDgIdCv3ZI4TZoQkUGqJdnBUVQeSIRm 1318490818 Received: from localhost.localdomain (p54859303.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.133.147.3]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D74D4483410; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:26:57 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 In-Reply-To: <20111012224625.GA11408@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 13.10.2011 00:46: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 03:38:27PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King writes: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:43:16PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >>> ... >>>> Instead, let's just add a separate URL parameter to >>>> http_init, and all three callsites can pass in the >>>> appropriate information. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff King >>> >>> Sorry, I forgot to mention: this is meant to go on top of the >>> http-auth-keyring topic. >> >> Hmm, of course the patch was written to help http-auth-keyring topic, but >> wouldn't this be an improvement that is general enough? I.e. it could >> even go to the bottom of the topic, no? > > Yes, it could, and probably should. I suspect it might need some > rebasing to do that. > > I'm going to float some other possible designs for the topic as soon as > I put enough polish on them. So I'll try to move this down when I > re-roll. In the meantime, if you want to throw it on top, great. If you > want to ignore it until then, no problem. :) > > -Peff Thanks, Jeff. To clarify: Without http-auth-keyring, this helps in the sense that git reads the username from a user@host URL and asks for the password only. When using GIT_ASKPASS or such, the askpass helper is called with "Password:" only. With (parts of) http-auth-keyring, the askpass helper is called with "Password for:user@host", which helps the user identify the request, and which helps helpers such as ksshaskpass to store the password with a meaningful key in a wallet. I'm not sure whether it's feasible/worth taking these bits of http-auth-keyring (improved prompt) out and apply them early. That is, I'm sure it's worth it (it would alleviate the need for credential helpers for some users at least), I haven't looked at feasibility ;) Michael