From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: miles@gnu.org (Miles Bader) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:01:43 +0900 Subject: cannot fetch arm git tree In-Reply-To: <20110121145025.GS13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (Russell King's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:50:26 +0000") References: <20110116092315.GA27542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110116110819.GG6917@pengutronix.de> <20110116134248.GD27542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D398C43.1000306@vollmann.ch> <20110121134728.GO14956@pengutronix.de> <20110121135725.GR13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D3997FE.5030109@vollmann.ch> <20110121145025.GS13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > I'm really not interested in working out how to bodge this into working > along side the existing gitweb setup by adding lots of rewrite rules, so > as gitweb got there first I think it has priority, that's what we have > and we'll have to live without the smart http extensions. ... > It's really not that big a deal if you follow the advice I've given. Smart http is actually a very big deal -- the old git http protocol is almost unusable in practice with big repos, at least over somewhat latency-limited network connections. If you don't intend to support people pulling over http, then maybe you don't care. But if you do care, it's very much worth a second look. [My personal reason for caring is that I'm behind a corporate firewall that's latency limited, although it seems to have pretty good bandwidth. With some public repos, pulling via the old http protocol was a multi-hour operation; the new http protocol is typically multiple orders of magnitude faster in these cases.] -Miles -- Omochiroi!