Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261507AbVEPJbg (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2005 05:31:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261511AbVEPJbg (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2005 05:31:36 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:26022 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261507AbVEPJbf (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 May 2005 05:31:35 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Matthias Urlichs Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:29:10 +0200 Organization: {M:U} IT Consulting Message-ID: References: <200505151122.j4FBMJa01073@adam.yggdrasil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: run.smurf.noris.de User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) X-Face: '&-&kxR\8+Pqalw@VzN\p?]]eIYwRDxvrwEM Being able to do without a server side CGI script might > encourage deployment a bit more, both for security reasons and > effort of deployment. A simple server-side CGI would be a "send me all changeset SHA-1s, starting at HEAD until you reach FOO" operation (FOO being the SHA1 of the previous head you've pulled before). This operation is simple enough that it people should have no problem installing such a CGI. You could then stream-pull the actual contents over HTTP/1.1 without further CGI interaction. -- Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | smurf@smurf.noris.de - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/