Re: More problems...

[Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>]

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

> BTW, I've just committed support for pulling from remote repositories
> over the HTTP and SSH protocols (http://your.git/repo,
> git+ssh://root@git.nasa.gov/srv/git/mars) (note that I was unable to
> test the SSH stuff properly now; success reports or patches welcome).
> Also, the local hardlinking access is now done over git-local-pull,
> therefore the cp errors should go away now.

Before you get too far with the SSH version, I have some protocol changes
which (1) allow transmission of things other than objects; (2) allow the
pushing side to report that it doesn't have something without killing the
connection; (3) send refs. (1) and (2) are needed to make the protocol
extensible; (3) takes advantage of (1) to make it possible to maintain a
remote repository without doing anything other than rpush to it.

This goes with my patches from the weekend to enable git-*-pull to
transfer refs/ files in the same process.

> I'm not yet decided whether locations like
> 
> 	kernel.org:/pub/scm/cogito/cogito.git
> 
> should invoke rsync, rpull, throw an error or print a fortune cookie.

Probably not rpull, which requires a login, at least not unless the others
fail. I think that http-pull is going to be nicer in the long run than
rsync, since the remote repository could have a bunch of mingled heads
and http-pull will get exclusively the interesting stuff. If you're trying
to push, then rpush, since that's the only push.

Personally, I've been using http://... for http-pull, rsync://... for
rsync, and //... for rpull/rpush (which is somewhat justified wrt the URI
standard for using the program's default method).

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*