Jonathan Nieder <> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jonathan Nieder <> writes:
>>> How about this?
>>> A patch on top could change the default "git-shell-commands is not
>>> present" message if that seems worthwhile.
>> Hmph.
>> I wonder if rewording the message when git-shell-commmands directory
>> is not there may be a better first step (which actually could be the
>> last step)?
> Maybe, but it's not a step that I'm interested in.  I don't think it
> changes the desirability of the patch I sent.  They are independent.

What I thought I read in the log message was that you wanted to give
a better message telling the users that the site does _not_ allow an
interactive shell access.  I do not see how that is independent from
a message given from this codepath, where the side has forbidden
shell access by not having ~/git-shell-commands directory in the
first place.  Are you shooting for customizability?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to