should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

[Sitaram Chamarty]

Subject line says it all... While working with people trying to use
gitolite's new support for the "smart HTTP" mode, I find sometimes
they get side-tracked by this document.

Is there any text we could add to it to say "ok guys this is from
2006, a lot has happened in git since those days..." etc?

thanks,

-- 
Sitaram

Re: should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

[Junio C Hamano]

Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

> Subject line says it all... While working with people trying to use
> gitolite's new support for the "smart HTTP" mode, I find sometimes
> they get side-tracked by this document.

Not everybody uses gitolite, and I do not think we have broken the dumb
HTTP support (however broken the original was ;-) to render the document
obsolete.

Perhaps we should do three and half things:

 - The said documentation should be fine as is if the reader is trying to
   set up a dumb HTTP push support; otherwise it should be updated.

 - It would be really nice if somebody wrote a similar document describing
   how to set up a smart HTTP server, and put it next to the said
   documentation.

 - When the above two is done, insert one line "This describes an older
   way; see <<insert the name of the other document here>> for insn to set
   up an experimental smart HTTP server" at the beginning of the original
   document.

and finally:

 - On the gitolite side, refer to the "new" document in git.git
   documentation set.

Re: should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

[Sitaram Chamarty]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Subject line says it all... While working with people trying to use
>> gitolite's new support for the "smart HTTP" mode, I find sometimes
>> they get side-tracked by this document.
>
> Not everybody uses gitolite, and I do not think we have broken the dumb
> HTTP support (however broken the original was ;-) to render the document
> obsolete.

My apologies; I didn't realise my mail would come across like that.

Let me clarify.  "While working with gitolite users" was only meant to
explain how *I* came across the issue, nothing more.

I assumed that the new -- much more efficient (correct?) transport
would make the older (dumber) transport obsolete, and I didn't realise
it had any advantages over the new one.

> Perhaps we should do three and half things:
>
>  - The said documentation should be fine as is if the reader is trying to
>   set up a dumb HTTP push support; otherwise it should be updated.
>
>  - It would be really nice if somebody wrote a similar document describing
>   how to set up a smart HTTP server, and put it next to the said
>   documentation.

I just followed "man git-http-backend" and it all worked.  Should there be more?

>  - When the above two is done, insert one line "This describes an older
>   way; see <<insert the name of the other document here>> for insn to set
>   up an experimental smart HTTP server" at the beginning of the original
>   document.
>
> and finally:
>
>  - On the gitolite side, refer to the "new" document in git.git
>   documentation set.

It does refer to the new one, otherwise no one would have been able to
use those instructions!

Just that some people... I don't know.. gloss over the exact filename
maybe... or they find the other one first and think it's the right
one...

Anyway, you're partly right -- I probably should highlight it better in my docs.

Thanks

-- 
Sitaram

Re: should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

[Jonathan Nieder]

Sitaram Chamarty wrote:

> I assumed that the new -- much more efficient (correct?) transport
> would make the older (dumber) transport obsolete, and I didn't realise
> it had any advantages over the new one.

FWIW the old transport still has its place.  If your web host (e.g.,
an ISP) allows only static content (no CGI), then there is no choice.

Not so relevant for gitolite but still relevant in the world.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan

Re: should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

[Junio C Hamano]

Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

>> Not everybody uses gitolite, and I do not think we have broken the dumb
>> HTTP support (however broken the original was ;-) to render the document
>> obsolete.
>
> My apologies; I didn't realise my mail would come across like that.

Oh no need for that; I didn't realise -my- response would, either ;-)

> I just followed "man git-http-backend" and it all worked.  Should there be more?

No; that would mean the next step would be (as you suggested)...

>>  - When the above two is done, insert one line "This describes an older
>>   way; see <<insert the name of the other document here>> for insn to set
>>   up an experimental smart HTTP server" at the beginning of the original
>>   document.

... this one.

I trust you can take care of the gitolite documentation side ;-)

Thanks.

Re: should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

[Sitaram Chamarty]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
>
>> I assumed that the new -- much more efficient (correct?) transport
>> would make the older (dumber) transport obsolete, and I didn't realise
>> it had any advantages over the new one.
>
> FWIW the old transport still has its place.  If your web host (e.g.,
> an ISP) allows only static content (no CGI), then there is no choice.
>
> Not so relevant for gitolite but still relevant in the world.

Also I now realise the new transport requires Apache, so people with
other web servers probably need it too.

I guess what remains is that the protocol is not efficient enough,
especially for normal push/fetch working-day interactions.  I'll find
suitable wording that reflects all this...

thanks

sitaram

Re: should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

[Sitaram Chamarty]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> No; that would mean the next step would be (as you suggested)...
>
>>>  - When the above two is done, insert one line "This describes an older
>>>   way; see <<insert the name of the other document here>> for insn to set
>>>   up an experimental smart HTTP server" at the beginning of the original
>>>   document.

I meant to ask earlier but forgot.  Is this considered experimental still?

> ... this one.
>
> I trust you can take care of the gitolite documentation side ;-)

;-)

Re: should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

[Jakub Narebski]

Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sitaram Chamarty wrote:
>>
>>> I assumed that the new -- much more efficient (correct?) transport
>>> would make the older (dumber) transport obsolete, and I didn't realise
>>> it had any advantages over the new one.
>>
>> FWIW the old transport still has its place.  If your web host (e.g.,
>> an ISP) allows only static content (no CGI), then there is no choice.
>>
>> Not so relevant for gitolite but still relevant in the world.
> 
> Also I now realise the new transport requires Apache, so people with
> other web servers probably need it too.

Why do people think that "smart" HTTP transport requires Apache web
server?  If I understand it correctly provided git-http-backend is a
simple CGI script, and requires CGI-capable web server and git
installed on server.  Examples use Apache because probably that is
what author was familiar with.  I don't see the reason why it
shouldn't work e.g. with nginx or IIS...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git