From: Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:55:31 GMT
Subject: Re: should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?
Message-ID: <AANLkTinv3kzvtC_Pq4F0cM_JqU7-Q2a=sWs8YSxbMiPs@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vsjzyrh2w.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

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