Skip to content

support for subdirectory-based multiple keys - #41

Open
lacides wants to merge 4 commits into
wingrunr21:masterfrom
lacides:subdirectory-based-multi-keys
Open

support for subdirectory-based multiple keys#41
lacides wants to merge 4 commits into
wingrunr21:masterfrom
lacides:subdirectory-based-multi-keys

Conversation

@lacides

@lacides lacides commented Mar 4, 2013

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Hi,
Just as it says on the tin. I need this feature for one of my projects. I'm happy to discuss about any edge cases I may have missed or about any feedback provided.

Lacides

@wingrunr21

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Howdy,
Any reason for a Simple SSH key over just using the original SSH key? I think I'd prefer one object (especially since the difference between the two is not clear) that maintains backwards compatibility.

Otherwise, looks solid.

@lacides

lacides commented Mar 18, 2013

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Hey,
Sorry for the delay.
I really didn't have a particular reason for using a new class, I guess I just thought it'd be easier to write. I'm cool with rewriting it so it uses the original class, though I don't see how the new class breaks backwards compatibility.

@wingrunr21

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Less concerned about the backwards compatibility and more that there are two SSHKey objects without any real distinction. I'd prefer one SSHKey object and if child-objects are needed to properly manage nesting then those can be utilized that way.

@lacides

lacides commented Apr 1, 2013

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I understand. So, I just went and used the original SSHKey class (didn't use a child object) by adding an instance variable to indicate nesting. Let me know what you think.

@n-rodriguez

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Hi there!

Any news on this PR?
I have pull requests to submit (remove chdir, use last version of Gitlab-grit, etc...), can I send them?

Thank you!

@wingrunr21

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

@n-rodriguez I'm not actively maintaining this gem any longer. If this PR seems to do the job I'm ok with merging it.

Go ahead and send other PRs. I'll look them over.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants