From: Kevin Stange <kevin@steadfast.net>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deal with HTTP 401 by requesting credentials.
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:41:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FCE36C1.3010807@steadfast.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120605162824.GB20915@sigill.intra.peff.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2145 bytes --]
On 06/05/2012 11:28 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:02:08PM -0500, Kevin Stange wrote:
>
>>> The dumb-http push code is the only thing that does not go through
>>> http_request these days. So another option would be to refactor it to go
>>> through that central point. I took a brief look at this when I was
>>> updating the credential code a few months ago, but didn't consider it a
>>> priority, as most people should be using smart http these days. Is there
>>> a reason you can't use smart-http? It's significantly more efficient.
>>
>> Smart HTTP didn't come up in any of my Google searches. With that as an
>> option, I might just drop this work now. I'd rather see incomplete methods
>> that aren't recommended go away than further facilitate their use, personally.
>
> Me too. I would love it if dumb http push just went away. It's extremely
> neglected, and has very few advantages over smart http (really, the only
> advantage is that the server does not need to run git). However, we do
> get bug reports on it occasionally, so I think people are still using
> it.
>
> So far our approach has mostly been to prevent any serious regressions,
> and otherwise not worry too much about dragging it along with new
> features.
It seemed a lot of "guides" that I found while searching suggested using the
"dumb" system. That may be why it remains in use. I can't imagine too many
people have issues running a CGI to ensure everything works right.
>> If I decide to continue working on this, I will keep these in mind. I'm
>> pretty sure that if I can get smart HTTP working, there's no reason to even
>> bother with this from my perspective, unless you think there's substantial
>> value in it.
>
> No, I don't think there's substantial value. If you can move to smart
> http, you are much better off.
I've gotten smart HTTP working perfectly. Thank you for pointing me to it. I
am considering this resolved.
--
Kevin Stange
Chief Technology Officer
Steadfast Networks
http://steadfast.net
Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-05 16:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-31 22:24 [RFC] Deal with HTTP 401 by requesting credentials Kevin Stange
2012-05-31 23:18 ` Kevin Stange
2012-06-01 8:35 ` Jeff King
2012-06-01 17:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-06-05 16:23 ` Jeff King
2012-06-01 17:02 ` Kevin Stange
2012-06-05 16:28 ` Jeff King
2012-06-05 16:41 ` Kevin Stange [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4FCE36C1.3010807@steadfast.net \
--to=kevin@steadfast.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).