On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:29:25PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> The more I think about it, I actually think that we do the user a *really*
> great disservice by filtering the CONFIG_DATA_ENVIRONMENT. If I call
>
> git -c ... $cmd
>
> and that configuration is *not* picked up, it is much worse than letting
> users shoot themselves in their own feet by specifying config settings
> that are *prone* to wreak havoc.
That's a good point. For every "whoops, I didn't mean for this to kick
in for the submodule!" there is an equal and opposite "whoops, this
needed to kick in for the submodule!" case (e.g., instead of
over-reaching turning http.sslverify off, you might be trying to turn it
_on_ and fail to apply it in all cases).
And making the rule "-c applies to all sub-processes, period" is much
simpler to explain.
(Though of course it is still not entirely true. We clear the config
when accessing another repository as a remote for fetching or pushing.
But a good chunk of that is simply for consistency of all remotes, as
we do not pass the environment across TCP sessions).
> > So I think the only two cases worth filtering are:
> >
> > 1. Ones where we _know_ that the config is nonsense to pass along,
> > _and_ where a user might conceivably make use of the
> > just-the-top-level version of it (core.worktree
> > comes to mind, though of course they are probably better served by
> > "--work-tree" in such a case).
> > 2. An option where we think there may be some security implication.
> > Setting "http.sslverify" to false does have some security
> > implications ("oops, I only meant to turn off verification for the
> > root repo, and I got MiTM-attacked for the submodules!"). But it's
> > so obscure and unlikely that I think the benefit outweighs it.
>
> I can see that happening when somebody calls an alias with `git -c ...`
> and that alias performs actions in the top-level project as well as all
> submodules.
>
> But. Do we really have to be "Big Daddy" for users who do that?
I have more sympathy for cases that full under (1) above, just because
they currently work _now_. So it's possible somebody is currently doing
a thing that makes sense under the current rules, but will involve
foot-shooting under the new version.
> > I am OK staying with a whitelist.
>
> Me, too. But I am even more in favor of abandoning this "we know what is
> good for you" approach, i.e. that whitelist that filters
> CONFIG_DATA_ENVIRONMENT.
I could live with that, too. I've added Jens to the cc; his preference
for not blindly sharing config to submodules is part of what influenced
me in the original discussion.
-Peff
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/264840
I think that's the right link, which I dug out of my
<[email protected]> from a few months
ago. Gmane seems to be down.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
