►
From YouTube: GSoC 2021 Git credentials binding 2021 07 21
Description
Jenkins git credentials binding office hours July 21, 2021. Topics included releasing changes, writing a blog post, next steps, package scoping, and resolving issues with private keys.
Meeting notes are available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gZneYIDWrT5S-1ACG641wfvxs7vnDC0RCYqy-EuuhwY/edit#heading=h.m0lph2u36pvh
A
C
A
A
A
A
E
A
C
A
C
C
A
E
Yeah
I
was,
I
was
intending
to
release
it
tonight
or
right
now.
Basically,
if,
if
we
as
a
group,
say
yes
we're
ready
to
go,
I
think
it's
time
to
merge
it
release
it,
and
then
you
can
base
your
private
key
implementation
on
a
stable
version.
Instead
of
having
to
do
all
sorts
of
games
with
versions
that
haven't
been
merged.
Yet.
E
Yeah,
I
feel
like
I've.
I've
been
not
as
intensely
focused
on
the
code
review
as
I
have
been
on
the
interactive
testing,
but
all
my
interactive
testing
has
been
been
quite
satisfactory,
so
I
I
don't
see
much
reason
to
to
delay
it,
and-
and
yes,
if,
if
we
have
objections
to
documentation
or
something
like
that,
those
are
pretty
easy
things
to
fix
the
functionality
is
there
and
I
feel
like
it's.
As
far
as
I
can
tell
it's
very
strong.
A
A
E
Not
feeling
strongly
about
my
comments
there,
a
part
of
me
was
was
thinking
hey,
should
we
do
a
blog
post
to
to
introduce
it,
because
really,
this
is
one
of
the
top
three
most
requested.
Most
highly
voted
jenkins
enhancement
requests,
and
so
it
may
be,
it
may
justify
a
blog
post
to
say,
hey,
look
step.
One
of
this
highly
requested
here
here
are
some
ways
you
can
use
it.
E
A
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
C
E
He
had
already
said
yes,
so
so
I'm
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
do
the
merge
we'll
accept
that
there
are
justin.
Your
question
on
all
the
the
logging
improvement
that
rishabh
suggested
is
still
certainly
possible.
That's
not
blocked
by
releasing
again
or
by
by
doing
a
release,
formatting,
not
an
issue.
We
know
how
to
do.
E
E
E
C
E
B
B
E
And
did
I
interrupt
something?
I'm
sorry
we
were
just
discussing.
Actually,
your
timing
is
perfect
because
we
we
had
just
come
to
the
agreement
that
we
would
go
ahead
and
merge
so
that
I
could
start
the
release
process
and
we
may
even
have
the
release
done
by
the
time
our
meeting
ends
today,
and
but
there
was
this
one
question
you
asked
about:
why
why
this
is
added
to
the
contract
to
be
implemented?
E
D
D
E
E
D
No
as
we're
doing
with
this,
this
method
called
get
to
name
right,
gatekeeping
get
cli
get
to
so
there.
What
we're
doing
is
that
we're
ensuring
we
have.
We
have
placed
our
own
logic,
which
is
going
to
run,
but
we're
not
giving
placing
the
responsibility
of
the
user
to
implement
the
logic
to
resolve
the
game.
Similarly,
why
I
was
thinking
that?
Why
do
we
need
to
place
that
responsibility
to
the
user
when
we
know
that
this
is
going
to
be
constant?
D
D
I
mean
I
have
provided
all
the
parameters
that
are
required
for
the
programmer
to
create
a
git
client
instance.
So,
and
in
my
implementation
I
am
not
using
the
repository,
so
there
is
a
method
dot
using
that
could
be
used
to
set
a
specific
repository
in
which
the
git
client
instance
will
be
available.
So
I'm
not
using
that,
so
I
think
that
could
be
used
by
another
programmer
based
on
his
in
on
their
logic.
D
That's
a
good
idea,
but
the
way
we
could
find
out
how
this
is
being
implemented
is
that
we
could
look
at
how
the
git
plug-in
uses
it
for
for
the
major
functionality
it
performs
right,
because
I
think
that
is
the
biggest
consumer
of
getting
a
good
client.
So
if,
if
we
know
that
we
can
safely
assume
that
this
is
90
or
let's
say,
99
of
the
users
are
going
to
do,
I'm
not
sure
I
I
did
not
get
the
point
of
using
the
repository
to.
D
D
D
I
think
if
this
is
what
is
being
used
majorly
by
the
consumers
of
this
api,
then
we
can
provide
the
default
implementation
and
remove
that
you
know
that
responsibility
from
the
user,
but
it's
not
it's
like
a
network.
I
I
don't
think
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
something
that
we
should
do
right
now,
but
then
mark
said
that
this
is
permanent.
E
E
C
D
E
So
as
I'm
prone
to
not
take
the
effort
just
because,
if
we
do
change
it,
I
feel
like
I've
got
to
go
through
interactive
again
and
verify
interactively
with
the
modified
code.
And
so
there's
there's
a
motivation
to
me
to
say
no,
let's
not
change
it.
Let's
go
ahead
and
ship
it
because
we
want
to
get
harshit
onto
fully
focused
on
the
private
key
work.
A
A
I
guess
if
it
was
easier,
if
it
was
easier
to
remove
it
than
that,
then
maybe
I
would
like
say
that
maybe
it'd
be
nice
to
remove
it
but
yeah.
Given
the
interactive
testing
that
you
have
to
do
like
that,
seems
reasonable,
and
and
given
the
facts
that
it's
quite
unlikely
that
someone's
going
to
take
a
dependency
on
this
api
anyways
and
the
harm
in
someone
taking
a
dependent
money
on
it-
probably
isn't
a
lot,
but.
E
So
so
to
double
check.
So
what
what
I
think
rashad
your
point
is,
is
if
I'm
implementing
the
get
credentials
binding
interface,
I
must
provide
an
implementation
of
get
get
client
instance
and
that
implementation,
I
must
provide,
will
probably
be
those
exact
two
lines
that
are
in
the
implementation
already.
D
Yes,
the
only
point,
the
only
logic
being
that
we
should
not
assume
that
the
user
is
a
customer
aware
of
the
date
to
of
the
git
plugins
ecosystem
or,
let's
say
apis.
Let's
say
they
want
to
implement
the
binding,
extend
the
binding
and
they
don't
want
to,
but
it
it
feels
like
an
extra
step.
But
then
it's
okay,
because
you
you
don't
need
you
said
the
reality
is
that
the
binding
itself
is
not
going
to
be
extended.
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
E
E
Well
and
mark's
got
an
embarrassing
one
that
the
jenkins
released
that
should
have
happened
today,
didn't
because
there
was
an
infrastructure
problem
that
I
should
have
investigated,
but
I
I
didn't.
I
was
busy
doing
other
things
so
we're
one
day
late
for
the
jenkins
weekly
that
should
have
been
delivered
yesterday
or
it
should
have
been
delivered
today.
E
A
E
E
D
E
D
It
thinks
that
the
this,
the
the
public
and
the
priority
are
not
matching,
I
would
say
they
are
not
authenticating
forming
a
valid
key
pair,
so
I
think
they,
it
was
an
issue
when
I'm
converting
the
byte,
the
byte
for
the
byte
key
private
key
into
a
file
format,
so
that
this
is
where
I'm
getting
an
issue,
but
the
plugin
that
I
suggested
so
the
library
that
I
have
suggested
is
performing
this
on
by
its
own.
So
I
don't
have
to
care
much
about
the
formatting
of
the
file.
C
D
D
D
C
D
C
A
C
E
A
A
A
E
B
D
E
And
really
to
me
the
when
I
look
at
that,
I
think
the
the
location
of
ssh
is
is
very
much
a
command
line,
get
specific
thing
and
command
line
gets
specific
things
probably
should
stay
inside
the
get
client
if,
if
my
preferences
are
held
just
because
that's
that's,
that's
a
kind.
That's
a
level
of
guessing
that
that
I
wish
we
didn't
have
to
do.
E
C
E
E
A
A
A
D
D
D
B
D
No,
no,
I
was
just
I
was
just
looking
at
the
library
yeah
if
it
works
for
you.
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
if
so
you're
directly
getting
the
the
decrypted
key
in
a
string,
content
right,
yeah
and
the
problem
you're
facing
with
ssj
or
any
other
library,
is
that
it
gives
you
that
same
content
in
a
buy
in
a
byte
array
in
a
byte
array,
and
then
you
have
to
convert
it
into
a
file
first
and
then
you
convert
that
to
a
pen
or
do
you
convert
that
into
a
string?
D
B
D
D
D
C
A
A
C
D
D
A
I'm
not
seeing
it,
but
that
could
be
my
search.
Foo
is
not
working
well
on
on
gitter
did
you,
I
guess
one
question
I'd
have
is
if
you
convert
directly
to
a
file
first,
are
you
passing
the
same
encoding
that
should
be
expected
for
for
the
byte
stream,
because
I
wonder
if
anything's
getting
like
kind
of
swapped
in
terms
of
liking
coatings,
but
I'm
I'm
assuming
you've,
probably
already
taken
a
look
at
that?
I
think
I
remember
you
passing
in
a
coating
before,
but.
C
D
E
Yeah,
although
for
me
the-
and
I
agree
the
more
mature
is,
is
interesting.
I
like
seeing
the
history
of
maverick
synergy
and
the
fact
that
it's
got
a
commercial
entity
behind
it.
That's
that's
very
comforting
comforting.
Yes,
if
the,
if
the
code
were
mit
licensed,
the
answer
would
be
trivial,
go
with
it.
Yeah.
D
A
Yeah-
and
I
guess
I
have
kind
of
what
might
potentially
be
a
silly
idea,
but
could
be
an
interesting
idea
from
a
licensing
perspective,
but
maybe
annoying
for
you
from
a
user
perspective
is
that
you
could,
since
this
is
a
particular
type
of
ssh
key
like
maybe
you
can
make
this
an
optional
plugin,
but
I'm
not.
I
don't
really
like
the
solution.
I
just
want
to
really
like
really
make
sure
that's
clear.
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
E
E
E
A
D
E
A
E
C
D
E
That's
the
one
we're
describing,
and
it's
just
one
ultimately
there
at
the
end
of
the
project,
we'll
want
you
to
do
a
blog
post
that
describes
the
experience
that
summarizes
and
that
highlights
the
functionality.
This
was
for
me
just
a
good
short-term
way
to
describe
it
for
people
so
that
they
can
realize
that
functionality
is
available.
The
project's
not
complete,
we
haven't
done
private
keys
yet,
but
it's
already
usable
and
shipped.
E
D
E
E
E
E
D
E
Yeah
well
and
that
harsha,
if,
if
you
don't
mind
not
being
one
of
the
authors
of
this,
I
think
it
might
be
good.
If
we
let
you
stay
focused
on
the
code,
do
you
do
you
have
a
feeling
one
way
or
the
other
gee?
I
want
to
be
a
writer,
and
I
want
to
do
some
writing
on
this
or
no
I'd
like
to
stay
on
the
code.