David Turner <David.Turner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > I dunno. The code path you are changing _only_ affects anything if >> > > the http.emptyauth config is set. But I guess I just don't >> > > understand why you would say "http://@gitserver"; in the first place. >> Is that a common thing? >> > >> > I have no idea if it is common. I know that we do it. >> >> I guess my question is: _why_ do you do it? Or more specifically, does >> http://gitserver.example.com"; with http.emptyauth not work, and why? >> >> From your response, I _think_ the answer is "no, it doesn't, and I have no >> clue why". > > That was true historically. > > I just tried our old version of git 2.8 (that is, before this patch, and before the libcurl upgrade), and http://gitserver.example.com *does* seem to work with http.emptyauth (and does not work without). However, http://@gitserver.example.com does *not* work with http.emptyauth, and *does* work without. > > After the libcurl upgrade, but before this patch, http://@gitserver.example.com does *not* work with http.emptyauth, while http://gitserver.example.com does. > > And finally, after the upgrade and with this patch, both urls work. > >> So I dunno. It is annoying not to know what is actually going on, but I'm >> OK with it if we don't think there's a high chance of regressing any other >> workflows (which I guess not, because http.emptyauth seems to be a >> Kerberos-specific hack in the first place). > > Yes, I think this is all Kerberos-only. Now, perhaps with these back-and-forth, hopefully you have enough material to update the proposed log message to clarify so that next Peff won't have to ask "would it be common? why would you do so?" Thanks.