On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:46:10PM -0400, Randall S. Becker wrote: > > I suspect (2) would fit in with the existing code better, as the special case > > would mostly be limited to the manner in which we feed the credential to > > curl. And you could probably just set a config option for "this url's auth will > > be oauth2", and use the existing mechanisms for providing the password. > > > > We'd maybe also want to allow credential helpers to say "by the way, this > > password should be treated as a bearer token", for cases where you might > > sometimes use oauth2 and sometimes a real password. > > Be aware that there are 4 (ish) flavours of OAuth2 the last time I > checked. It is important to know which one (or all) to implement. The > embedded form is probably the easiest to comprehend - and the least > implemented from my research. More common OAuth2 instances use a > third-man website to hold session keys and authorization. That may be > problematic for a whole bunch of us who do not play in that world. I think Git's usage would be limited to "how do I present this token for my requests". I don't think we'd ever recognize an oauth redirect and try to fulfill it ourselves. We'd rely on getting a 401 and punting all those bits to a credential helper to do the heavy lifting. I say that not knowing much about oauth2, of course, so maybe there would be complications with that approach (I do know there are multiple ways you can present a token, but we'd support whichever ones people are interested in enough to show up and provide a patch for). -Peff
