| 1 |
On 8/17/19 4:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>> I realize we'd have to tell people how to rename the account to support |
| 4 |
>> upgrades -- but is there some other reason to keep the shared "git" name? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The argument I've been told is that users expect 'git@...' to work |
| 7 |
> as remote URI on their boxes. They don't want users to bind the URI to |
| 8 |
> specific implementation. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It's not really a URI... it's a username on a remote machine. And these |
| 12 |
"users" are programmers =P |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
But, I can understand not wanting to tell a bunch of strangers to edit |
| 15 |
all of their ~/.git/config files at this point. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Instead of configuring both packages to use different users, could we |
| 18 |
configure them to share a working directory? If we give the "git" user a |
| 19 |
home directory of /var/lib/git [0], then as far as I can tell, both |
| 20 |
gitolite and gitea will be happy with that. They use different |
| 21 |
configuration file names and repository locations, and wouldn't need to |
| 22 |
block each other. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[0] This doesn't violate the guidelines that I posted since real humans |
| 26 |
log in as this account to clone repos out of $HOME. Moreover, I don't |
| 27 |
think that either gitolite or gitea references this path itself -- it |
| 28 |
really belongs to the user. |
Archives