The password that was prompt was not for ssh authentication,  but for the 
fossil repository auth. For ssh, I still rely on my key.

-- 
Martin G.


Le 2012-08-31 à 19:00, Sverre Bisgaard Rasmussen <[email protected]> a écrit :

> From your report, I think this should be fixed too, as the unnecessary 
> password check is a usability problem.
> 
> I just tried to clone via ssh (using fossil 1.22 5dd5d39e7c), and have not 
> yet setup pageant with keys (on windows).
> My experience is that I need to enter the password correctly to gain 
> connection.
> Therefore I do not have the same problem as you, however if I set up pageant 
> I think I would.
> 
> Will your patch still allow connections, if you do not have keys set up?
> 
> From my perspective as a user i cannot decide if your patch is the best way 
> to proceed for developers of fossil.
> However it sure looks like a simple, straight-forward  patch, so it might be 
> good, if it also works without keys set up.
> 
> Regards, Sverre
> 
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:25:43 +0200, Martin Gagnon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Is there anyone else thinking this patch should be applied ?
>> 
>> Le 2012-07-10 12:30, Martin Gagnon a écrit :
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Martin Gagnon <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    Hi list..
>>> 
>>>    When I use ssh:// protocol on remote-url and I specify my usename in
>>>    it:
>>>       e.g.:  ssh://user@host/path/to/repo.fossil
>>> 
>>>    Fossil prompt me for a password, I can enter anything and it work.
>>> 
>>>    I know that recently, authentication got bypassed when using ssh
>>>    protocol, but it seems that the password prompt when specifying
>>>    password in the remote-url  is still present while useless in ssh mode.
>>> 
>>>    I guess the prompt should be remove when using ssh://.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        Note: it's not ssh itself asking me for password, I use keys,
>>>    it's really fossil.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Here a patch I propose, I tried to use the "url_get_password_if_needed"
>>> function for that case, but there was some duplicated conditions check
>>> and I didn't want to re-order too much the code.. So I just add a simple
>>> condition check in the proper place.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Martin G.
>>> 
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Reply via email to