Re: [PATCH] Ask for "git program" even against git-daemon

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Jun 25, 2008, 23:57 UTC
Message-ID: <20080625235724.GV11793@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7viqvxw0i7.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> >
> > But I wonder if this patch is even worth it at some later point
> > in time.  Are we also going to change git-daemon to stop accepting
> > "git-" form?  Is it a worthwhile change?
> 
> This was merely responding to...
> 
>     From: "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>
>     Subject: Re: [PATCH] Keep some git-* programs in $(bindir)
>     Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:37:41 -0400
>     Message-ID: <20080625043741.GD11793@spearce.org>
> 
>     Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> wrote:
>     > ...
>     > Should they use "git upload-pack" [...]
> 
>     IMHO they should in the future use "git upload-pack".

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was talking about the SSH transport only. For git:// we could just always send git-upload-pack, like your transitional patch does. Then we stay compatible with even very old git:// servers.

-- 
Shawn.