From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miles Bader Subject: Re: cannot fetch arm git tree Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:43 +0900 Message-ID: References: <20110116092315.GA27542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110116110819.GG6917@pengutronix.de> <20110116134248.GD27542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D398C43.1000306@vollmann.ch> <20110121134728.GO14956@pengutronix.de> <20110121135725.GR13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D3997FE.5030109@vollmann.ch> <20110121145025.GS13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jello huang , Detlef Vollmann , Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Russell King - ARM Linux X-From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org Mon Jan 24 06:02:53 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: linux-arm-kernel@m.gmane.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PhEZl-0004QF-PP for linux-arm-kernel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:02:49 +0100 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([2001:4978:20e::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PhEZE-0001e1-MX; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 05:02:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=canuck.infradead.org) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PhEZC-0003mR-TG; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 05:02:14 +0000 Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.206]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PhEZ7-0003m7-Ny for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 05:02:11 +0000 Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.192]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p0O51jEv010607; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:45 +0900 (JST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id p0O51jk21164; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.46]) by vgate01.nec.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p0O50CZ1021895; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.40] [10.29.19.40]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:44 +0900 Received: from dhlpc061 ([10.114.98.136] [10.114.98.136]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:44 +0900 Received: by dhlpc061 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 2650C52E233; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:44 +0900 (JST) System-Type: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <20110121145025.GS13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:50:26 +0000") X-CRM114-Version: 20090807-BlameThorstenAndJenny ( TRE 0.7.6 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20110124_000210_238623_E99F493F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 11.95 ) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.3.1 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (0.0 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org Archived-At: Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > I'm really not interested in working out how to bodge this into working > along side the existing gitweb setup by adding lots of rewrite rules, so > as gitweb got there first I think it has priority, that's what we have > and we'll have to live without the smart http extensions. ... > It's really not that big a deal if you follow the advice I've given. Smart http is actually a very big deal -- the old git http protocol is almost unusable in practice with big repos, at least over somewhat latency-limited network connections. If you don't intend to support people pulling over http, then maybe you don't care. But if you do care, it's very much worth a second look. [My personal reason for caring is that I'm behind a corporate firewall that's latency limited, although it seems to have pretty good bandwidth. With some public repos, pulling via the old http protocol was a multi-hour operation; the new http protocol is typically multiple orders of magnitude faster in these cases.] -Miles -- Omochiroi!