From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: GIT 0.99.9e Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:08:36 -0800 Message-ID: <436F8A14.9070306@zytor.com> References: <7v64r5t3m0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20051107154718.GJ3001@reactrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Nov 07 18:10:04 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZAUY-0003Oc-EU for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:09:10 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932313AbVKGRIy (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:08:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932308AbVKGRIy (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:08:54 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:45292 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932300AbVKGRIx (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:08:53 -0500 Received: from [10.4.1.13] (yardgnome.orionmulti.com [209.128.68.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jA7H8gHd021010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:08:42 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Nick Hengeveld In-Reply-To: <20051107154718.GJ3001@reactrix.com> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.87, clamav-milter version 0.87 on localhost X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on terminus.zytor.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nick Hengeveld wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 09:43:19PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > >> - http-push seems to still have a bug or two but that is to be >> expected for any new code, and I am reasonably sure it can be >> ironed out; preferably before 1.0 but it is not a >> showstopper. > > It seems like a minor point, but is this the appropriate name or should > it be dav-push? Not that there's anything else in the works AFAIK but > it's certainly possible that something else could run over HTTP later > on. > Push over HTTP POST would at least be theoretically possible. -hpa