From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:07:51 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ask for "git program" even against git-daemon Message-ID: <7vd4m5vz1k.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20080625235724.GV11793@spearce.org> "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Shawn O. Pearce" 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" >> 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 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. Ok, if that is the plan, then we wouldn't even need to futureproof git-daemon at all. Not having to change anything is good ;-).