From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Stange Subject: Re: [RFC] Deal with HTTP 401 by requesting credentials. Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:41:37 -0500 Message-ID: <4FCE36C1.3010807@steadfast.net> References: <4FC7EFB7.4090704@steadfast.net> <20120601083537.GA32340@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4FC8F590.2070308@steadfast.net> <20120605162824.GB20915@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig46E5D2A801C1A33B4A50EEA6" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 05 18:41:44 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SbwpD-0008Lj-MR for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:41:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753459Ab2FEQlk (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:41:40 -0400 Received: from staffmx.steadfast.net ([67.202.100.6]:44110 "EHLO staffmx.steadfast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751463Ab2FEQlj (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 12:41:39 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by staffmx.steadfast.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4C616AC09E; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:41:38 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at steadfast.net Received: from staffmx.steadfast.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (staffmx.steadfast.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-ZOen4MJQ2c; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:41:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ziyal.office.steadfast.net (unknown [IPv6:2607:f128:0:1:222:4dff:fe51:2ed5]) by staffmx.steadfast.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0147016AC09D; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:41:38 -0500 (CDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 In-Reply-To: <20120605162824.GB20915@sigill.intra.peff.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig46E5D2A801C1A33B4A50EEA6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/05/2012 11:28 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:02:08PM -0500, Kevin Stange wrote: >=20 >>> 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 th= ere >>> 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 me= thods >> that aren't recommended go away than further facilitate their use, per= sonally. >=20 > Me too. I would love it if dumb http push just went away. It's extremel= y > neglected, and has very few advantages over smart http (really, the onl= y > 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. >=20 > 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 m= any 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 substan= tial >> value in it. >=20 > 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 i= t. I am considering this resolved. --=20 Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 --------------enig46E5D2A801C1A33B4A50EEA6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/ONsEACgkQkd/BoeKjg0iLtwCgiKloaKzUFBQTeIP2+39vXnTY TsIAnjxcZG3PQSxkUjQD3DOyTfFiJgdp =yOit -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig46E5D2A801C1A33B4A50EEA6--