Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Wed, 4 May 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: >> >> >> submodule: pass on http.extraheader config settings >> > >> > IMHO this should come on top of jk/submodule-config-sanitize-fix (I was >> > surprised at first that your test worked at all, but that is because it >> > is using "clone", which is the one code path that works). >> >> Yes. > > Okay. > >> > But I think we are waiting on going one of two paths: >> > >> > 1. drop sanitizing entirely >> > >> > 2. fix sanitizing and add more variables to it >> > >> > If we go the route of (2), then we'd want my fix topic and this patch. >> > And if not, then we don't need any of it (just a patch dropping the >> > filtering, which AFAIK nobody has written yet). >> >> Doubly yes. That is why I didn't pick up 2/2 in the previous round >> and also jk/submodule-config-sanitize-fix is not in 'next' for the >> same reason. > > Okay. It was not clear to me that the indentation was not the reason it > was ignored.
It wasn't even ignored. I looked at it carefully, noticed that it contradicts with what you said in a different message, and made a concious decision to wait. >> I agree with you that we have not yet reached concensus on which one >> of the two we would want to take. I was sort of surprised to see >> 2/2 sent again, after seeing that Dscho sounded strongly in favor of >> not filtering the passed configuration variables, which would make >> the patch unnecessary. > > Hah, my opinion matters after all. When your proposal ends up getting rejected, it is not because your opinion does not matter. In any case, for this one, the reason I decided to wait until the "filter or not filter, and if filter, use whitelist or blacklist" discussion settles does not depend whether I happen to agreed with your preference (which is "not to filter"). That is, there is a difference between "I will not apply this ever, because I know the outcome of the the other discussion already and it will make this patch unnecessary", and "I cannot decide to apply this yet, because this may be needed if the other discussion goes in a certain way but this may turn out to be unnecessary if it goes in another way." And the topic branch having only the first one is because this case was (and I think still is) the latter. -- 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
