From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "http: don't always prompt for password" Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:19:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20111213231909.GD12432@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20111213201704.GA12072@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20111213202508.GA12187@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vaa6wuqjt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stefan Naewe , Sebastian Schuberth , Eric , git@vger.kernel.org, msysgit@googlegroups.com To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 14 00:19:17 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rabcy-0000TN-De for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:19:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755250Ab1LMXTM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:19:12 -0500 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:49837 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753471Ab1LMXTM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:19:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 25211 invoked by uid 107); 13 Dec 2011 23:25:52 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:25:52 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:19:09 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vaa6wuqjt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:09:42PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Doing (3) is obviously the easiest thing. And given the complexity of > > the other two solutions, I think it makes sense to revert 986bbc08 > > (i.e., apply this patch), ship a working v1.7.8.1, and then look at > > doing one of the other two solutions for v1.7.9. > > Or just let the "dumb HTTP" die. > > I thought push over DAV has long been dead; is anybody using it for real? For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with letting it die. I just think we probably shouldn't do it accidentally during a release. ;) -Peff