From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] connect: only match the host with core.gitProxy Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 07:36:39 +0900 Message-ID: <20160516223639.GA16182@glandium.org> References: <20160516000740.19042-1-mh@glandium.org> <20160516000740.19042-3-mh@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, tboegi@web.de To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 17 00:36:51 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b2R87-0005o2-A2 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 17 May 2016 00:36:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751504AbcEPWgs (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2016 18:36:48 -0400 Received: from ns332406.ip-37-187-123.eu ([37.187.123.207]:54910 "EHLO glandium.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751356AbcEPWgr (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2016 18:36:47 -0400 Received: from glandium by zenigata with local (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1b2R7v-0004c9-Q8; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:36:39 +0900 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Fingerprint: 182E 161D 1130 B9FC CD7D B167 E42A A04F A6AA 8C72 User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 03:30:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > > Currently, core.gitProxy doesn't actually match purely on domain names > > as documented: it also matches ports. > > ... > > This per-port behavior seems like an oversight rather than a deliberate > > choice, so, make git://kernel.org:port/path call the gitProxy script in > > Hmph. The fact that hostandport, not just host after stripping > possible ":port" part, is passed to the function smells like a > deliberate design to allow people to use different proxy for > different port, so I am not sure everybody agrees with your "seems > like an oversight". > > Don't existing users depend on the behaviour? Isn't the change > robbing Peter to pay Paul? The gitProxy script gets the port passed. Why would you need different scripts for different ports if the port is passed as an argument? Also, if it's deliberate, it's widely undocumented. Mike