Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
Jonathan Nieder [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
How about this?
A patch on top could change the default "git-shell-commands is not
present" message if that seems worthwhile.
Hmph.
I wonder if rewording the message when git-shell-commmands directory
is not there may be a better first step (which actually could be the
last step)?
Maybe, but it's not a step that I'm interested in. I don't think it
changes the desirability of the patch I sent. They are independent.
What I thought I read in the log message was that you wanted to give
a better message telling the users that the site does _not_ allow an
interactive shell access. I do not see how that is independent from
a message given from this codepath, where the side has forbidden
shell access by not having ~/git-shell-commands directory in the
first place. Are you shooting for customizability?