[PATCH] Per-host remotecmd option in .hgrc

[Matt Mackall]

On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 20:20 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 01:11 +0200, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
> >> Matt Mackall wrote, On 09/30/2011 09:36 PM:
> >>> On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 22:25 +0400, Dmitry Samersoff wrote:
> >>>> dsamersoff: Per-host remotecmd option in .hgrc (issue359)
> >>>> 
> >>>> Patch below allows user to setup per-host remotecmd in the .hgrc file
> >>>> in the form:
> >>>> 
> >>>> [ui]
> >>>> remotecmd = /opt/bin/hg
> >>>> remotecmd.mircat.net =/opt/csw/bin/hg
> >>> Well I can't think of a better solution short of adding a bunch of
> >>> per-host sections.
> >> 
> >> This adds another way of doing host-specifc configuration, different 
> >> from what we already have for hostfingerprints and auth.
> > 
> > Agreed, we should aim for some uniformity here.
> > 
> >> I think it 
> >> would be slightly better to add a remotecmd section. That could perhaps 
> >> simplye be "implemented" by documenting it as
> >> [ui.remotecmd]
> >> mircat.net = ...
> > 
> > Hmm, that's not especially appealing. And it sort of implies a similar
> > trick can be done for all ui settings.
> > 
> > The various sections existing per-host settings look like this:
> > 
> > [auth]
> > foo.prefix = example.com/path
> > foo.username = bob
> > foo.schemes = http https
> > 
> > [hostfingerprints]
> > example.com = 38:76:52:7c:87:26:9a:8f:4a:f8:d3:de:08:45:3b:ea:d6:4b:ee:cc
> > 
> > ..so it's already a bit late to be consistent unless we do something
> > more drastic.
> > 
> > Also, we probably want to specify ui.ssh in a consistent fashion.
> > 
> > I think we should seriously consider replacing this mess with a
> > consistent per-host schema of some sort.
> 
> [hosts] # Not actually thrilled with this name on account of it working for local paths too, but oh well?
> foo.prefix = example.com/path
> foo.username = alice
> foo.fingerprint = 38:76:52:7c:87:26:9a:8f:4a:f8:d3:de:08:45:3b:ea:d6:4b:ee:cc
> foo.remotecmd = /we/put/hg/over/here/hg

> Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Could probably even write a contrib
> script to suggest the right results based on the user's current
> config. Anything I'm missing that we should consider?

One issue is that we've got multiple protocols mixed up in here. So, for
instance, the fingerprint only applies to SSL (and not SSH!) and
remotecmd only applies to SSH. Also, you might possibly have different
usernames for http/ssh on the same host. The [auth] section deals with
this with the schemes marker, which lets you have a foo that applies
only to ssh and a bar that applies only to https. But that's rather
suboptimal. It might be better to have:

foo.username = alice
foo.username.ssh = aliceb

Also, Mads' trick can be applied here:

[hosts]
foo.val = x

is the same as:

[hosts.foo]
val = x

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.