Recomment not to commit .gitfat for S3 backend.

[rainwoodman]

Just received an Email from amazon about compromized identity because .gitfat has been pushed to github!

[zelonght]

@rainwoodman maybe we use different .gitfat .gitfat_s3 to avoid this completely.

[dlin]

zelonght notifications@github.com writes:

@@ -80,7 +91,7 @@ First, we create a repository and configure it for use with git-fat.
remote = localhost:/tmp/fat-store
$ mkdir -p /tmp/fat-store # make sure the remote directory exists
$ echo '*.gz filter=fat -crlf' > .gitattributes

• $ git add .gitfat .gitattributes
• $ git add .gitfat .gitattributes # do not add .gitfat if S3 backend is used.

@rainwoodman maybe we use different .gitfat .gitfat_s3 to avoid this completely.

I'm not sure about this -- .gitfat has something like 3 lines in it.
I don't think it would be worth splitting it into two separate files.

[rainwoodman]

Ideally, I would like to run a command like

git fat remote set s3://.......    --username=.... --secret=......

after cloning.

The command would store to .git/config or to .git/fatconfig, which would never be committed to the repository.

git-fat would then use the secrets stored in the following order:
ENV > .git/config > .gitfat

this supports 4 usecases:

1. traditional rsync
   repo owner commites .gitfat; user clones and get .gitfat, ready to go
2. s3
   repo owner does not commit .gitfat;
   user clones and run git-fat remote set s3:// .....
   ready to go;
3. advanced rsync(with a opensshkey)
   repo owner does not commit .gitfat;
   user clones and run git-fat remote set rsync://.... --username --secret=pathtoidentifyfile
   ready to go;
4. standard S3 environment variables overrides all of these.
   (commit 8a9775f)

[dlin]

Ideally, I would like to run a command like

git fat remote set s3://.......    --username=.... --secret=......

after cloning.

I think we should be able to use something like

https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-credential.html

to manage the passwords. It will take a bit of fiddling (and perhaps a
newish version of git.)

[rainwoodman]

Looks reasonable!

[zelonght]

re: "It will take a bit of fiddling" -- I am ok with that as long as we can easily setup this (no problem with upgrading stuff).