From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (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 8CCBBC8C7 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727108685; cv=none; b=hPAGnuMlAkWRLlZXYPgsjRzDUZBJefU/uuuSS+PGr96jgpEO1mJnaPXEdUb8CWUIr+doZO1/bMnROnby+GIj39xy70JoiUPKs/i+LJjTPbQna7K07My2aB2xHrJ5IzsaDVCWkHf1sqbQ+J+cGlmD1KdBlngXoLvAUeQK+0O37B8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727108685; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TG4N+RfzOdZQJTm9uVmrMkjijws01ZcyHhSAtPDPtZ4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dRLK6uOsG3zJ6QwJKXHEwnNRXSQPLTCOIaXziCtHFEKJP0m0yxoySv3LDwp0sU5F2pqjqJlMhmd+2lNjVIf9TpO/VRDj29oN3x3QoX5KYPnqrMOzLuCu6NBhxWMLJuJLXV/moPHmVFBHHF+xnFv9EEq+UVCBI3NGFzneYSlrULk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=h5wvzktx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="h5wvzktx" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7129426C16; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:24:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=TG4N+RfzOdZQJTm9uVmrMkjijws01ZcyHhSAtP DPtZ4=; b=h5wvzktxrJXzulC+rLSqO2kFfn7/sY5bFqeOYVTgJ9vq0PiXmNVRtX WfSupqk6BODYywD+8zh7bGX40Q4c3dzRmB/n4d795y9n3Xn2datHWK+ku10zZUG9 RA4mquDMn8C+Qzbb/frhror5BACGW4HcflALLjWdYNB/t2axP+HWs= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E4C26C15; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:24:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C980826C14; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 12:24:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, liuzhongbo.gg@gmail.com, Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] maintenance: configure credentials to be silent In-Reply-To: <5114e7fa-7858-458a-bc5d-5c82ea663a48@gmail.com> (Derrick Stolee's message of "Sun, 22 Sep 2024 21:36:02 -0400") References: <5114e7fa-7858-458a-bc5d-5c82ea663a48@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 09:24:40 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 56339896-79C8-11EF-B1FD-9B0F950A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Derrick Stolee writes: > On 9/20/24 5:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" writes: >> >>> Add a new configuration value, 'credential.interactive', to specify to the >>> credential helper that it should not prompt for user interaction. This >>> option has been respected by Git Credential Manager since 2020 [1], so this >>> is now presenting it as an official Git config value. >> So, the other helpers are also supposed to check for the variable >> and fail when it has to go interactive now. > > I would hold off from saying "supposed to" but Git is definitely hinting > towards that behavior. I would too. I didn't mean "they were behaving correctly, but we changed the rules from under them and they need to be fixed". With or without your patch, they would try to go interactive and make the process get stuck, until they start to check if they should refrain from going interactive. With your patch, they have a way to do that check in a documented way. > Perhaps I'm just hung up on the idea that we are not adding a new wrinkle > to the "contract" but recommending a good thing that was previously not part > of the interaction. > > Thanks, > -Stolee