should Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt be marked obsolete?

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.

Is there any text we could add to it to say "ok guys this is from 2006, a lot has happened in git since those days..." etc?

thanks,

Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

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.

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.

 - 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.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

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.

I just followed "man git-http-backend" and it all worked.  Should there be more?

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 Chamarty wrote:

FWIW the old transport still has its place. If your web host (e.g., an ISP) allows only static content (no CGI), then there is no choice.

Not so relevant for gitolite but still relevant in the world.

Hope that helps, Jonathan

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Also I now realise the new transport requires Apache, so people with other web servers probably need it too.

I guess what remains is that the protocol is not efficient enough, especially for normal push/fetch working-day interactions. I'll find suitable wording that reflects all this...

thanks

sitaram

Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

Why do people think that "smart" HTTP transport requires Apache web server? If I understand it correctly provided git-http-backend is a simple CGI script, and requires CGI-capable web server and git installed on server. Examples use Apache because probably that is what author was familiar with. I don't see the reason why it shouldn't work e.g. with nginx or IIS...

Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> writes:

Oh no need for that; I didn't realise -my- response would, either ;-)

No; that would mean the next step would be (as you suggested)...

... this one.

I trust you can take care of the gitolite documentation side ;-)

Thanks.

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

I meant to ask earlier but forgot.  Is this considered experimental still?

;-)