On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:46:13PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > We'll want to honour people's decisions to remain a mystery or to work > around broken server implementations, or just to make it harder to track > or fingerprint them. Yep, I agree with everything you said, especially this part. > I also think the documentation should state that for the user-agent and > os-version fields that they are merely informative, can be changed, and > MUST NOT be used for access control. That doesn't mean people will > honour it, but it does mean that we can and should feel free to break > implementations that don't comply. I think Christian's proposed documentation did have something along these lines. I do kind of wonder if we even need a separate "os-version" field, and if it couldn't simply be plugged into the user-agent string (making it "git/1.2.3 Linux x86_64" or something). But maybe that introduces more hassles with respect to configuring/overriding the two parts separately. -Peff
