Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Dave Borowitz <dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps something like this? >>> >>> Seems like it should work. >>> >>> Jonathan had suggested there might be some principled reason why >>> send-pack does not respect config options, and suggested passing it in >>> as a flag. But that would be more work, certainly, as it would also >>> have to get passed through git-remote-http somehow. >> >> I actually was wondering about exactly the same thing as Jonathan, >> and that is where my "Perhaps" came from. > > I will say, though, as the maintainer of a handful of custom remote > helpers, I would prefer a solution that does not involve changing the > implementation of those just to pass this configuration through. That is not a controversial part ;-) > So my > vote would be for send-pack to respect the normal config options. The thing is what should be included in the "normal" config options. The "something like this?" patch was deliberately narrow, including only the GPG thing and nothing else. But anticipating that the ref backend would be per repo configuration, and send-pack would want to read from refs (and possibly write back tracking?), we may want to prepare ourselves by reading a bit wider than "GPG thing and nothing else", e.g. git_default_config() or something like that. -- 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