From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: tip tree clone fail Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:59:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20081012175927.GB4856@spearce.org> References: <48EF14FC.1000801@cn.fujitsu.com> <48EF1902.4070309@cn.fujitsu.com> <48EF7BC1.4000401@zytor.com> <20081012124105.GA26988@elte.hu> <48F20663.2040407@zytor.com> <20081012152427.GA4607@elte.hu> <20081012153952.GV10544@machine.or.cz> <20081012165954.GA2317@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Ingo Molnar , Petr Baudis , "H. Peter Anvin" , Wang Chen , Thomas Gleixner , FNST-Lai Jiangshan , FJ-KOSAKI Motohiro , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Oct 12 20:01:46 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 1Kp5GA-0007sG-Mm for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:01:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754486AbYJLR72 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:59:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754520AbYJLR72 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:59:28 -0400 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:60356 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754356AbYJLR72 (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:59:28 -0400 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 50B8C3835F; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski wrote: > Ingo Molnar writes: > > > Soapbox: in fact it would be outright stupid to limit the kernel > > source's availability artificially by not making HTTP a tier-one access > > method. > > Hopefully there should soon be here "smart" HTTP server [...] > > It is WIP, but I'm not sure how far it is from completion. Its still not even prototyped. I'm supposed to be spending my 20% time at Google on the Git-in-HTTP documentation and implementation, so I can feed patches to the list for review. Sadly, my current 80% project has been demanding >120% of my time these past 5 weeks, so I have not been able to touch the Git-in-HTTP concept in that time period. Most of my 80% project has to be wrapped up by this time next week. Afterwards I'm going to try and dedicate at least a week to Git-in-HTTP and get caught up. I sort of have to; its part of my goals for my performance evaluation. Even if the list winds up rejecting my implementation, I still have to put it out there for discussion. -- Shawn.