From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC35E20899 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 16:54:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752195AbdHHQy4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:54:56 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57220 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752092AbdHHQyz (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:54:55 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D999A686; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:54:55 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ObOgnhTdNWNmnRM2uK8ybeHKIzI=; b=NEI9+8 bM7MP93mJi+D7UeGepL3cUhrVLcNaXymjKASG2r8MJpCYf8Xb0d22+77MXhgBBgd jGzOlleZkgJhvZ06KUiGW7/QhNneza/qKh4PVs7WJ4IIs6kYD06INQWeezdSSMoc StgTsafyqoskAOAyp/9bJeYw4khFufyaWwoIQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=sj/X4NvdKsQGkoz4Ew15Z19U1SLEhcH/ t8j7tDr7RSXYczSPBOpTN0xVnOTqHyvtiQ+cw63n0wCKtzV7QRO/Mlu0p1FkzTOZ eN+WKED901i/CiEGyhdQ2HFbw5Lj5hUkh9ce8cYqKB974w/n44U0qUzQZH1W5/eQ wgaQ3y+gG+Y= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFE79A684; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 926DE9A683; Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:54:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Andreas Schwab , Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] imap-send: escape backslash in password References: <58b783d6-c024-4491-2f88-edfb9c43c55c@morey-chaisemartin.com> <87bmnvktee.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <20170804202255.3oia7ivsoa6vu4me@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170804212231.pl3uipcsujflcuha@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170808072510.leb525df4hmbwcvo@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2017 09:54:53 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20170808072510.leb525df4hmbwcvo@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 8 Aug 2017 03:25:10 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4D6F83D2-7C5A-11E7-AB08-FE4B1A68708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > I think we're not quite ready to switch to curl based on comments in the > nearby thread. But just for reference, since I started looking into > this... > > The defines in the Makefile turn on USE_CURL_FOR_IMAP_SEND want curl > 7.34.0. That's only from 2013, which is probably recent enough that it > may cause a problem (I had originally thought it was a few years older, > but I forgot the curl version hex encoding; 072200 is 7.34.0). > > For comparison, nothing older than curl 7.19.4 will work for building > Git since v2.12.0, as we added some unconditional uses of CURLPROTO_* > there. Nobody seems to have noticed or complained. I pointed this out a > few months ago[1] and suggested we clean up some of the more antiquated > #if blocks in http.c that don't even build. There was some complaint > that we should keep even these ancient versions working, but the > compile error is still in "master". > > So it's not clear to me that anybody cares about going that far back > (which is mid-2009), but I'd guess that 2013 might cause some problems. > > [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20170404025438.bgxz5sfmrawqswcj@sigill.intra.peff.net/ > if you're curious (you were offline for a while at that time, I > think). Thanks for digging. It would not help the issue on this thread at all. While I agree with your conclusion in the quoted thread: I think it might be nice to declare a "too old" version, though, just so we can stop adding _new_ ifdefs. Maybe 7.11.1 is that version now, and in another few years we can bump to 7.16.0. :) it appears that we silently declared it to 7.19.4 and found out that nobody complained, without us having to wait for a few years?