Junio C Hamano wrote: > The purpose of the directory is to keep custom commands that are > allowed. If the site administrator does not want any command, it > would be more natural to expect that the way to disable them would > be _not_ to have that directory which is a collection of allowed > commands. Adding that directory and add a "help" that exits with > non-zero feels quite a roundabout and counter-intuitive way, no? I think it comes down to the reason the site admin doesn't want to allow interactive logins. That reason seems to be mostly that presenting a git> prompt at which you can only ask for "help" or "exit" is a bit confusing and pointless. I have sympathy for that, which is why I looked for a way for the admin to ask to avoid the prompt altogether in that case. I do not think the reason is "because I don't want a git-shell-commands directory". I think it's good to have basically one kind of setup instead of significantly different ones with and without that special directory --- and it means that starting from a setup like this, one can easily drop in additional commands like set-head or create-repo without changing anything basic. It's making the admin's later life easier. Maybe a better test than "help exits with special exit code" is "there are no other custom commands than help". Would that be more sensible? >From a "make it possible to emulate gitolite" point of view, that doesn't permit disabling the interactive mode when there are other commands available, so my hunch is that it wouldn't. Jonathan -- 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