You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am opening this issue as requested in #48 (comment)
Instead of having to configure separate passwords (e.g. in ~/.authinfo.gpg), code-review should be able to use an existing forge configuration to avoid duplicate work for the user. See #48 (comment) for possible solutions.
Preferably, I'd just do without any additional custom option and just use the 'forge key to access the defined password. IMHO, a custom option would only be a good idea for current users of code-review that have set everything up, but that may not be that many at the moment.
Without any further modifications though, only relying on the forge set up will not be enough; code-review requires more entries than forge. So in another step, one should probably make code-review use forge-alist and use fewer entries for the servers (e.g. gitlab.com/api vs gitlab.com/api/v4 vs gitlab.com.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
code-review searches for authentication data in ~/.authinfo.gpg by looking
for logins ending with "^code-review", like magit forge does with looking
for logins ending with "^forge". Add a customization option to make
code-review look and use those configured for forge, so that users of
forge can use the entries they have configured already.
This fixes issue #211.
I am opening this issue as requested in #48 (comment)
Instead of having to configure separate passwords (e.g. in ~/.authinfo.gpg), code-review should be able to use an existing forge configuration to avoid duplicate work for the user. See #48 (comment) for possible solutions.
Preferably, I'd just do without any additional custom option and just use the 'forge key to access the defined password. IMHO, a custom option would only be a good idea for current users of code-review that have set everything up, but that may not be that many at the moment.
Without any further modifications though, only relying on the forge set up will not be enough; code-review requires more entries than forge. So in another step, one should probably make code-review use forge-alist and use fewer entries for the servers (e.g. gitlab.com/api vs gitlab.com/api/v4 vs gitlab.com.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: