Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > FWIW, I had the same reaction. From the client perspective for https, > this is going over basic-auth, and it might be nice to just say so. But > of course the whole credential system is abstract, so it gets awkward. > We could probably say something like: > > The credential's password, if we are asking it to be stored. Note that > this may not strictly be a traditional password, but rather any secret > string which is used for authentication. For instance, Git's HTTP > protocol will generally pass this using an Authorization header; > depending on what the server is expecting this may be a password typed > by the user, a personal access token, or some other opaque value. Thanks. I have no problem with this replacement text. > Maybe that is getting too into the weeds. OTOH, anybody reading this far > into git-credential(1) is probably pretty technical. True, too.
