"Georgios Kontaxis" <geko1702+commits@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> ... so I doubt >> the wisdom of munging the patch part at all. >> >> I may be sympathetic to the cause of the patch, but, I do not agree >> with its execution in this iteration of the patch. >> > I see your point. > > It seems hiding e-mail addresses should be limited to the commit message, > i.e., stop at the "---" line. I doubt it makes sense to redact anything in the 'patch' view at all, actually. What kind of URL does the crawler need to formulate and what pieces of information (like commit object names or branch names) does it need to fill in the URL to get a series of patches out of gitweb? As long as it takes more effort than running "git clone" against the repository, the crawler would not have much incentive to crawl and harvest addresses from the 'patch' pages, and even in the log message part, the downsides of butchering the payload would outweigh the "privacy benefit", I would have to say. Quite honestly, if a site claims to offer a 'patch' download UI but returns corrupt data back, I would say it is much worse than not offering the service at all. Perhaps disabling the 'patch' feature in repositories that enable 'privacy' feature may be a much better approach.
