On 03/29/2012 09:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 06:22:30PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> >>> I think an even better thing would be for http-backend to leave >>> GIT_COMMITTER_* alone if it exists; that is the usual well-known >>> interface for setting such things. And then you could specify a >>> detailed committer name and email if you want, or leave them blank to >>> pull from $REMOTE_USER as we do now. As it is now, even if you specify >>> GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL, it gets overwritten with >>> "$REMOTE_USER@http.$REMOTE_ADDR". >> >> That patch would look something like this: > > It would regress for somebody who is running the CGI program while > exporting these environment variables pointing at himself and relying on > the fact that these are canceled by REMOTE_USER/ADDR (perhaps a web-based > editor can write into some repository and commits made by that editor > takes the ident information from COMMITTER variables, while another part > of the webserver takes a push by spawning the http backend???). > > Which is very unlikely. Agreed. > > If somebody else comes up with a valid scenario to show why this patch is > a bad idea, I'd stand corrected but at the same time I'd be very surprised. > > But I think this is the right thing to do, even though it is not related > to the issue William wanted to address with his patch. > The reason we're interested in this is validation -- who can push to our production puppet branch is determined by a post-update hook. A wrapper around http-backend like Jeff's combined with his patch would accomplish what we need just fine. > Care to sign it off? > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html