On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Fredrik Gustafsson <iv...@iveqy.com> wrote:
> Sorry I missed this thread earlier. I'll drop this if it's not something
> that's wanted.
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 01:51:34PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Sitaram Chamarty <sitar...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Uggh, no.  Client-git should only talk to server-git.  It shouldn't be
>> > talking first to some *other* program (in this case gitolite), and
>> > then to to server-git.  That doesn't sound sane to me.
> This is exactly the way gitolite works. It's placed between git-server
> and git-client. Does some checks and approves a connection if some
> criterias isn't met. See the example when trying to clone an
> non-existing repo from gitolite. You won't get an git error but a
> gitolite error.
> I can understand why my idea is beeing rejected but I can't see why the
> gitolite way should be considered sane. It seems more like an hack to
> me (according to git design principles).
> So from a git point of view, why is it sane for passing through STDERR
> but not STDIN and STDOUT?

That is precisely the point.  The pack protocol (see
Documentation/pack-protocol.txt in the git sources) works with
STDIN/STDOUT.  Run with GIT_TRACE_PACKET=1 to see some of that info
fly past on various git commands.

It explicitly leaves STDERR for the purpose of providing user's extra
information, including errors.

Gitolite is merely using that same mechanism.

And I repeat, if you insist on calling what gitolite does an
"interaction" (which to me means two-way communication, not a one-way
error/warning/diagnostic stream), we do not have enough in common to
discuss this any more.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to