On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:37:30AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > > Thanks. > > Do GitHub people have general aversion against signing off (or > sending out, for that matter) their own patches, unless they were > already active here before they joined GitHub, by the way? Mostly it is that I clean up the patches and commit messages before sending them out. Michael sends out his own patches because they are already perfect by the time I see them. :) I can certainly get S-O-B from GitHubbers, but my impression of the DCO is that it does not matter; as the first link in the signoff chain, I am certifying that the patch meets the licensing requirements. Of course, I know that because of my relationship to the author and our employer, which is something that isn't encoded in the headers. A S-O-B from the author would perhaps make it more obvious what happened. > I like the general idea and this escape hatch would be a good thing > to have. > > A few comments: > > - Seeing the word combination "restrict"+"remote" before reading > the explanation made me think "hmph, only allow remote archive > from certain hosts but not from others?" We are restricting the > objects and only on the remote usage, not restricting remotes, so > somebody else may be able to come up with a less misleading name. > > - It might be better to call the escape hatch "allow something" > that defaults to "false". It is merely the issue of perception, > but having a knob to be limiting that defaults to true gives a > wrong impression that in an ideal world remote archive ought to > be loose and we are artificially limiting it by default. After reading your first point, I came up with "archive.allowRemoteUnreachable", which also satisfies the second. I do not have a strong opinion. > > +archive.restrictRemote:: > > + If true, archives can only be requested by refnames. If false, > > As this does not affect local use of "git archive", "requested by > refnames" may need to be clarified further. Perhaps "remote > archives can be requested only for published refnames" or something. I was hoping to be vague. If we really want to get into specifics, we should probably document the current rules (refnames, and sub-trees of refnames). It might be a good thing to document that anyway, though. And by doing so, it would become obvious why one would want to set this option. I'll see what I can come up with. -Peff -- 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