Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html