On Monday 2008-07-07 20:03, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

quoted text
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> 
>> I don't think many care about http downloading, just because it is available
>> as such.
>> git:// and rsync:// are available though and should be usable even without
>> the http info that needs to be constantly refreshed when one wants to use
>> http....
>
> I thought rsync:// had the same problem (dumb transport) as http://.

I thought the opposite (read: no way to prove it).
rsync has a possibility to list a directory, whereas this is not 
possible with HTTP (you always get a fancy html index page or a 
Directory Listing Denied), hence it can figure out all objects that are 
possibly located in the repository.

quoted text
> I have made some sketches on a git-aware http protocol to deal with 
> the "idiot IT department-managed firewall" problem; however, I have 
> not had time to implement it.

Not wanting to downplay your work, but I'd be happier if they
would not get to have their githttp in the hope  that these
IT departments get a clue that http is not a fits-it-all solution.

Because once the workers can't do their job because the world is 
Git-dominated, they have to turn it on. But maybe then they still don't 
get the clue...hmm
tricky situation :)

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/