Re: Is there a reason to keep walker.c ?

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2008, 21:23 UTC
Message-ID: <m37ihv9d52.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20080127205155.GA5476@glandium.org>

Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:46:59PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> 
>>> While working on the http code refactoring, I got to wonder if the 
>>> walker.c "wrapper", that is only used for the http transport, is still 
>>> worth keeping. If there are plans for others transport to use this code, 
>>> obviously, it would be worth keeping, but on the contrary, I think it 
>>> would simplify the http transport code even more. What do you think ?
>> 
>> Really, I was waiting for somebody needing ftp and/or sftp support badly 
>> enough, so let's keep it.
>> 
>> I mean, one of those guys asking for ftp push support _got_ to just start 
>> scratching that itch, right?
> 
> Though, technically, ftp push could work with the curl code.

IIRC git fetch works with FTP transport. Somebody would have to write replacement for WebDAV authentication for ftp / sftp / ftps to have proper ftp push support. There were request, but AFAIR no code.

Are you thinking about POP / IMAP transport, or XMPP one ;-PPP ?

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git