On 2019.04.17 14:40, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> I do not personally think, as the design of v2 stands, a standalone > >> "serve" server that "can serve anything as long as it goes over > >> protocol v2" makes much sense, but perhaps those who have been doing > >> the v2 work may have different ideas, in which case let's hear what > >> their plans are. > > > > I too would like to hear more definite comments from people who think > > git-serve is worth keeping. In the meantime, there's some discussion > > from this thread in December: > > ... > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20181213195305.249059-1-jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > (In case you do not feel like reading the whole thing, my opinion there > > is that git-serve is probably not the right direction, and we would do > > well to demote it as Dscho's patch does). > > I guess we are more or less on the same page, then. I'll let others > chime in by waiting for a bit more but I won't wait forever ;-). > > Thanks. FWIW I used git-serve a fair amount while working on V2 support for archiving, and everything I did with it would have been just as easy with a test helper as with a builtin. So I have no objections to this change.
