From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Re: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ? Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:51:55 +0100 Organization: glandium.org Message-ID: <20080127205155.GA5476@glandium.org> References: <20080127204535.GA4702@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 27 22:02:31 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JJEe7-0003Ij-B2 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:02:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754169AbYA0VCA (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:02:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754144AbYA0VCA (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:02:00 -0500 Received: from vuizook.err.no ([85.19.215.103]:39393 "EHLO vuizook.err.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753454AbYA0VB7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:01:59 -0500 Received: from aputeaux-153-1-83-190.w86-205.abo.wanadoo.fr ([86.205.41.190] helo=jigen) by vuizook.err.no with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JJEe6-0002jr-UC; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:02:31 +0100 Received: from mh by jigen with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JJETr-0001Qv-Lw; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:51:55 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-GPG-Fingerprint: A479 A824 265C B2A5 FC54 8D1E DE4B DA2C 54FD 2A58 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Spam-Status: (score 0.1): No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:46:59PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > While working on the http code refactoring, I got to wonder if the > > walker.c "wrapper", that is only used for the http transport, is still > > worth keeping. If there are plans for others transport to use this code, > > obviously, it would be worth keeping, but on the contrary, I think it > > would simplify the http transport code even more. What do you think ? > > Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly > enough, so let's keep it. > > I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start > scratching that itch, right? Though, technically, ftp push could work with the curl code. Mike