Re: [PATCH v7 0/2] Conditional config includes based on remote URL

Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:

But can I back up and comment on a bigger picture item?

This mechanism requires somehow getting additional files to the user
separately; projects that span companies (git.git, linux.git, etc.)
won't likely be able to make use of this.

Scalar also has a mechanism for providing potentially large blocks of
pre-vetted configuration for users.  It does so as part of a new
top-level command.  And it does so with a very opinionated set of
values that are not configurable.  Thus, while I'd like to use it,
they use a configuration option that would break things badly at my
$DAYJOB.  (Too many gradle plugins using jgit, which doesn't
understand index.version=4 and will blow up with a very suboptimal
error message when they see it.)  And, it's very specific to scalar;
we probably don't want to add a new toplevel command everytime someone
wants common configuration to be easily grabbed by some user.

It would be nice if we could find some more generic solution.
Granted, I can't think of any, and I don't think this comment should
block this particular series (nor the scalar one), but I am worrying a
little bit that we're getting multiple completely different solutions
for the same general problem, and each brings caveats big enough to
preclude many (most?) potential users.  I don't know what to do about
that, especially since configuration that is too easy to propagate
comes with big security problems, but I wanted to at least raise the
issue and hope others have good ideas.  If nothing else, I want to
raise awareness to avoid proliferation of similar
pre-vetted-configuration-deployment mechanisms.  I'm CC'ing a couple
scalar folks as well for that point.

Yes, that's an accurate description. To reiterate what Jonathan said in
his first cover letter [1], the primary motivation is that we want to be
able to 'suggest' hooks to users. There was an RFC for this
'remote-suggested hooks feature' (docs [2], RFC implementation [3]) but
it ultimately stalled due to security concerns I believe (this was
before I joined the team, so I'm not the most familiar with this).

It might be worth re-reading those threads since they tread on pretty
much the same ground of shipping pre-vetted config (this is directed at
me too, since I haven't read through those in detail). I've also been
told that we're (aka Google) still looking for feedback on [2], so feel
free to share any thoughts on that thread too.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1634077795.git.jonathantanmy@google.com (local)
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.908.v4.git.1620241892929.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/ (local)
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover.1623881977.git.jonathantanmy@google.com/ (local)